| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman has several times mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is a Scotsman who is proud of his Scottish and British traditions and who can in no way be described as a little Englander. My right hon. and learned Friend said nothing that suggested that the United Kingdom should give up its ability to act independently when it needed to. He simply said that a less certain world required international agreements, and he listed them cogently and coherently.
Mr. Hayes: With respect, the motion deals only with collective action, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no significant comment about separate, national action. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. The motion and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution both lack balance. I do not say that international affairs do not necessitate alliances and collaboration, but the exclusion of national action appears to be at the heart of the differences between us in this debate.
This rapidly changing and less secure world makes a case for an enhanced sense of belonging through a reinforced nationhood and the opportunity for national action. It also renders inflexible institutions less, not more, relevant. The problem with the European Union as the basis for a common defence policy is that it is unsuited to the flexibility that is required. That is why I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who, like many in the EU, see it as the way forward.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South talked about the strengthening of the European pillar, but that will undoubtedly give the isolationists in America--many of whom are on the right--the opportunity to make a case for unilateral American action. That is what I wish to avoid. We should reinforce those institutions such as NATO--an association of sovereign nations--and the Commonwealth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred, which have the necessary flexibility to deal with a more rapidly changing world. That is why we reject the EU as an appropriate institution to undertake the sort of collaborative action that will be increasingly necessary.
Anyone who has any doubts about what I have said needs only to examine President Chirac's perspective. On 30 May, he addressed the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union and spoke about "reinforced co-operation", and that was fair enough. However, he also talked about decisions
- ultimately being the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, which is the only body with the international legitimacy to decide on the use of force.
- requires us to define our own objectives and to implement our own policies, and to use every resource to achieve them.
In conclusion, I believe that our strategic affairs, policy and perspective should be based on three things. First, our strategic approach should be based on a willingness to support our friends and allies, and especially our historic friends and allies in the Commonwealth and in our former colonies.
Secondly, it should be based on a determination never to endanger the lives of our citizens--including our troops--merely to indulge the conscience of the liberal elite, still less that of the liberal elite of other nations in Europe. Thirdly, it should be based on a proud, rigorous and unstinting determination to defend our national interest.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife described that approach as visceral. I believe that it is a proud and vigorous approach, and a popular one. I suggest to the House that it is shared by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country, regardless of how they vote in general elections.
8.46 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): The Liberal Democrat motion refers to the "successful military campaigns" in Kosovo. I applaud the actions of individual service men but this debate provides a justified opportunity to ask questions which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will answer when he winds up.
An article in today's edition of The Scotsman is headed "British NATO Troops Clash with Serbs". It states:
- British NATO peacekeepers shot and wounded three Serb men in the Kosovan Serb enclave of Gracianica after a senior British officer was attacked in the town as he tried to calm a demonstration.
"There was no question, my life was in danger, and our lives were very much threatened," said Brigadier Richard Shirreff, commanding of 7th Armoured Brigade, or "Desert Rats", after the incident at 11 am yesterday.
What exactly is going on in Kosovo? Under that scorching sunshine, it seems that a situation is developing in which troops from Britain and other KFOR countries are suffering the opprobrium of both sides. The House should be told exactly what that situation is.
The BBC News website today has a report that states:
- Five people were wounded in the attack in which two grenades were thrown from a passing car.
A British military spokesman, Flight Lieutenant Rob Hannam, said the troops believed they and the brigadier, who is responsible for security in the town, were in imminent danger.
He said troops fired warning shots into the air. When that failed to disperse the demonstrators, one or more of the soldiers fired into the crowd.
I was lucky enough to have an Adjournment debate at 1.55 on the morning of 22 May, starting at column 836 of the Official Report, when the House went very late. Reference was made to Richard Butler and sanctions to Iraq. I note that last week, Richard Butler was reported to have said that he now thinks that sanctions will serve no purpose. In the Adjournment debate, I referred at some length to the visit that I made with the former Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, who is not a naive man, and to the fact that we thought that sanctions were simply counter-productive.
We are grateful to the Liberal Democrats for having initiated this important debate. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who opened the debate, referred to Richard Butler, and I wish to refer specifically to Mr. Butler's book. I am not asking the Minister to respond to these somewhat detailed questions, but I think that they should be put on the record.
On page 4 of his book, Richard Butler says about Saddam launching another attack:
- Every thoughtful leader in the region assumes he may do so again.
Secondly, do the Government agree with the scenario described on page 5 of Richard Butler's book? He writes:
- A hit squad from somewhere in the Middle East travels to New York City carrying a one-litre bottle filled with one of the several chemical weapons agents we have long known Saddam Hussein to be developing. Using a simple sprayer (like one that a gardener or house painter might own), they diffuse the contents into the air over Times Square on a Saturday night or into the main concourse at Grand Central Station at 5:30 P.M. on a weekday evening. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people die agonizing deaths as a result. Because of their own handling of the substance and the strategic concern to maintain ambiguity over the source of the attack, the terrorists may have to be prepared to die themselves.
Page 17 of Butler's book refers to EMPA. The Minister is a scientist, and he will know that this stands for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. Butler says:
- The chemists had swabbed each of the pieces of metal to remove and collect the surface residues for analysis. As one might expect, they found a spectrum of substances on the metal surfaces, ranging from ordinary dirt to chemicals of various kinds. But there were also clear traces of a chemical called EMPA, short for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. It was this finding that had caused Horst Reeps to blanch. EMPA is a degradation product of one and only one known compound in the universe--the chemical VX, one of the most toxic substances ever made.
My last question on Butler's book is this: what is the Government's reaction to chapter 8, headed "Kofi Annan Goes to Baghdad"? In this chapter, Butler is deeply critical of the United Nations Secretary-General. They cannot both be right, and I am entitled to ask who the British Government believe is right.
My Adjournment debate took place at 1.55 in the morning on 22 May. I asked three questions and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office could have been forgiven for not answering them at that time of the morning. However, they bear repetition. First, I said:
- the United Nations has been reporting since August 1999 on the stock situation in Iraq involving food and medical supplies, and these monthly reports show a satisfactory distribution picture. Why are Her Majesty's Government continuing to identify a picture of hoarding of these humanitarian supplies?
- the President of the Security Council in January 1999 reminded the Security Council that there should be monitoring of the impact of sanctions on the human condition of those countries under sanctions, and also that the chairpersons of sanctions committees should visit their respective countries to obtain first-hand information on the ground. Why does that not happen in the case of Iraq, and what are the Government planning to do about it?
- no sign of an end to the stalemate between the UN Security Council and the Government of Iraq with regard to resolution 1284. This stalemate is entirely at the expense of the civilian population. Keeping that fact in mind, what do the Government propose as an initiator of the resolution to end the stalemate?--[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 835.]
-
Those are important questions, but as other hon. Members want to speak, I shall leave it at that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |