| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Jan 2003 : Column 180—continued
Mr. Straw: On arms sales, we continue to issue licences for those three countries, but they are subject, as are all arms sales, to the consolidated criteria approved by the House. On the other two points, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps raising the issue of a vote in the House. We have already said, as I spelt out in the debate here on 25 November, that there would be a vote on a substantive resolution on military action. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt it out again this morning before the Liaison Committee, and we have also spelt out that it is our earnest hope that such a vote will take place in advance of military action. The only circumstances in which a vote would have to take place shortly after military action commenced would be if it were unsafe for our troops to have it in advance. We hope very much that it will take place in advance.
We have also said that we will seek a second resolution. That is our policy. Our preference is for a second resolution if military action is judged necessary, but—to pick up a point raised earlier by one of my hon. Friends—we have to reserve the right if the Security Council itself does not live up to its responsibilities.
Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): When my right hon. Friend was at the UN yesterday, what discussions did he have with our European partners on this matter? What indication have they given him of the number of troops that they have deployed for possible action in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: There are four European member states on the Security Council—Germany, France, Spain and ourselves—of whom two are permanent members. Of those, the position of the United Kingdom is well known. Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister and Vice-Chancellor, spelt out that there were no circumstances at all in which Germany would participate in military action even if there were a material breach. France's position was not mentioned by Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, yesterday, but President Chirac has indicated in Paris that he would be willing to send troops to enforce the United Nations' will. I believe that Premier Aznar of Spain has done that too.
Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford): At the beginning of the statement, the Foreign Secretary referred to the problem of the proliferation of weapons—whether they be conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction—to terrorists. Does he therefore anticipate the need for any new laws to tackle this problem, or does he believe that existing controls are sufficient?
Mr. Straw: I think that the answer is that new laws will almost certainly be needed. That is why we have to have a continuing review of the effectiveness of the operation of both international and domestic law.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Only last week, my right hon. Friend stated that 27 January should not be regarded as a deadline. Having worked so very hard to get the UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq, why does there now seem to be a rush to get them out of Iraq and to make decisions even before they have had any chance genuinely to search that country to see whether there are any weapons?
Mr. Straw: I honestly say to my hon. Friend that no attempt whatever is being made to get the inspectors out of Iraq. The only attempt that is being made is to create an environment in which they can do their job properly. It does not depend on us, the United States or any other member of the Security Council; it all depends on the Government of Iraq. When Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei went to Baghdad at the weekend, their message to the Iraqi regime was that it had to co-operate. That is the message that they are delivering.
As to next Monday's discussion, I wanted—I stand by this—to ensure that people understood that resolution 1441 did not lay down in its terms that this was a deadline or the end of the inspection process. When the inspection process happens is a matter, first of all, for Saddam Hussein and his choices but, secondly, for the Security Council, which is literally the employer of Dr. Blix and Dr el-Baradei and gives them their instructions.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): A couple of weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary put the chances of avoiding military action at 60:40 against. Not everyone thought that that was helpful, but it gave a clear indication of his thinking. In the light of the weapons inspectors' discoveries of the last couple of weeks, have those odds shortened?
Mr. Straw: I am not going to discuss the numbers here. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the question of whether military action takes place is, in practice, in the hands of Saddam Hussein. No decisions have been taken about military action—none whatever—by us or the United States and we both hope very much that no decisions will be taken. However, the choice is before Saddam Hussein. If he complies fully and completely with resolution 1441, the inspectors say so and the Security Council accepts that, that will be the end of the matter.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): Will the Foreign Secretary provide the House with a reasonable definition of terrorism and rogue states so that we can distinguish between freedom fighters—which many countries, including our own and frequently the United States, support—and terrorists? It would also enable us to establish what is a rogue state. When one was using weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons against Iran and against its own people, it was supported by this country and particularly by the United States, but, when it stops using them, it becomes a rogue state.
Mr. Straw: I just say to my hon. Friend that it is literally untrue to say that this country supported the use of gases by Iraq. There are many myths, and it does not strengthen my hon. Friend's view on this issue, which is perhaps in contradistinction to that of his
Government, to rely on information that is simply incorrect. There are very many myths but it is simply not the case—we were not in government so I could easily disavow this—that, if one looks at the record, the previous Government in the 1980s supported Iraq in the use of chemical or biological weapons.
Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Straw: On my hon. Friend's invitation to me to define terrorism, I am very happy to provide him with the various definitions of terrorism laid down, for example, by this House in the Terrorism Act 2000 for which he voted or in the draft comprehensive convention on terrorism. I made the point to great approbation at the General Assembly in September last year that I do not accept that terrorists can excuse themselves by labelling themselves as freedom fighters. It is my belief that there is never justification—except in very limited circumstances—for innocent lives to be put at risk in pursuit of political ends.
Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham): The Foreign Secretary has said that the most aggressive rogue state is Iraq and that, to make it comply with UN resolutions, force may be required. Is he seriously suggesting to the House that by bombing Iraq and killing the innocent, that somehow Israel, which is in flagrant breach of various UN resolutions, will comply with those resolutions or that North Korea, which is now throwing out the UN inspectors and developing a nuclear bomb, will somehow be frightened into complying with the international community?
Mr. Straw: I do not begin to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. The UN charter clearly sets out and lays down that force may have to be used as a last resort to enforce its will. I have said before, and I repeat it, that we have to try every other avenue—yes, in the middle east, North Korea and Iraq—before we contemplate the use of force and, still less, use it. However, if we wish to have an effective international system that does not go the way of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, we have to back the will of the UN by force. It was a failure by the international community—not least, by members of my own party—in the mid-1930s to back the League of Nations not over Germany but, as it happens, over Abyssinia, that led to an environment in which tyranny won.
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart): I echo my right hon. Friend's tribute to Sir Jeremy Greenstock for the work that he and his team have done in leading the counter-terrorism committee in the UN. My right hon. Friend said in this statement that those countries that have yet to comply with the obligations placed on them by the committee will have until 31 March this year in which to do so. Can he tell us whether the UN is considering sanctions on those countries that fail to comply and, if so, what might those sanctions be?
Mr. Straw: No, the decision yesterday was that, if countries had failed to comply by 31 March, they would
be reported by the counter-terrorism committee to the Security Council for non-compliance. It would then be a matter for the Security Council to decide what action, if necessary, should be taken.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |