| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
30 Jan 2003 : Column 1063—continued
3.32 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): It is massively important that we are discussing this subject. I am pleased that the debate has proceeded as if it is on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. There is a substantive motion, but since the Government have not tabled an amendment to it and the Liberal Democrat amendment was not selected by the Speaker, the debate is about the issue only. Although I am one of those who always calls for substantive motions on which to vote in connection with Iraq so that we can hold the Government to account, the approach taken today is
right when considering humanitarian concerns. I am against any war in these circumstances and have humanitarian concerns, but I recognise that there are those who would venture down the path of war but who nevertheless need to be concerned about humanitarian matters too.The spokespersons for each major party have put on record very important information about the condition of the people and children of Iraq. Therefore, I do not need to go into the material that I have picked up from Save the Children, for instance, and other organisations such as Desert Rescue. Such information has been presented much more authoritatively. Some of the most important, open and honest statements on the current condition of the people of Iraq have been made by the Secretary of State. Many of us will be able to use such weighty and important comments; they are invaluable.
I think that the best contingency would be for us not to attack Iraq, so that the dangers that I am talking about do not emerge. Those who claim to use the humanitarian argument by saying, "We should still go in because Saddam Hussein is slaughtering his people and is responsible for the conditions" can be in a difficult position. Effectively, many of them are saying, "We do not really want to go in; we were hoping that revealing and getting rid of the weapons would make us free from danger". So their argument about the condition of people in Iraq and the danger that they face drops away. The horrors that have been described in relation to the people of Iraq should not be added to by the extra consequences that are due to follow, which are our responsibility and not that of Saddam Hussein.
I do not have to speak in detail about the horrors that have been suffered in Iraq as others have spelt them out, but it might be fruitful to consider how the current conditions emerged. Unfortunately, Britain is the last country in the world that should be involved in an attack on Iraq, because we are the old imperial power there. We created and shaped Iraq in 1920, and until 1932 we had a mandate over it that we exploited considerably for our own benefit, especially through the development of oil. It was not until Harold Macmillan, who was Foreign Secretary in 1955, signed the Baghdad pact—a bit of a wind of change in Iraq—that things started to alter in the country.
Before the signing of the Baghdad pact, Iraq was notionally independent, but dominated by British interests. Some 50 per cent. of its national income came from oil, essentially through the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum Company, and we had Crown bases in Habbaniya, Shaiba and Basra. About 4,000 RAF troops were stationed there; I was among those in Basra at about that time. The Iraqi Levies were also established—an Iraqi force entirely controlled by British officers. A puppet monarchy was established and the country had a basically feudal regime that was interested in land control. The development of oil provisions was very much in British hands.
The only opposition in Iraq at that time was underground. Among the army officers were some who dissented from the developments that were occurring, as they were greatly influenced by what was taking place under Colonel Nasser in Egypt. There was also an Iraqi communist party, which from 1937 had been involved in
strikes in the oil industry and at the docks in Basra, and was a major focus for intellectuals and trade union activists.From 1958, some economic and social circumstances improved. When people have a hope that things will get better in future, the possibility of establishing democratic avenues begins to emerge, but we did not see that as a something that it was desirable to nurture and assist. When the Kurds looked to develop their aspirations, they looked towards the establishment of a Kurdistan, but that would have upset Turkey, so we did not want to be involved in it. In a later period, there was perceived to be a danger of the Shi'a Arabs in the south falling into the hands of the ayatollah and other influences in Iran, but that was to misunderstand the nature of the Shi'a and their commitment to Iraq.
Improvements took place in conditions in Iraq. A welfare state was established, educational provision was extended, and there were improvements in housing. I saw a slum area on the edges of Baghdad that looked as if it was from the biblical period, although it had been established fairly recently. The conditions were terrible, with streets of mud, mud huts and open sewers. All that was replaced and proper housing, new streets and electricity were provided by new regimes. A cultured society was developing and extending. There had always been a tradition of learning in Baghdad and in other places, and that was now beginning to extend to more people. The regimes underwent coups and counter-coups, and in the end the Ba'ath party emerged and Saddam Hussein began to take over in 1980. The conditions of life for the Iraqi people started to deteriorate from 1982 to 1983, when the impact of the Gulf war began to kick in and the sanctions regime began. In my view, sanctions should not operate unless the people of a country ask for them—as in South Africa—because they have a considerable impact on people's standard of life.
Saddam Hussein's military measures and internal controls and the consequences of the Gulf war led to an absolute collapse in the standard of living of the Iraqi people. By 1980, their standard of life per capita had grown to 42 per cent. of Britain's, having risen, mainly as a result of oil, from a figure of 18 per cent. only about a decade earlier. That crashed down to 11 per cent. two or three years ago. The trading connection, oil for food, has improved it somewhat, and it has risen to about 13 per cent., but economic circumstances are knocking it down again. Should we really be going in to hammer such people? The humanitarian thing to do is not to take that avenue, but to get in there and give them the assistance that they need—to uncouple the regime by giving people rising horizons and hope.
3.43 pm
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for her introduction to the debate. Given the robust nature of this place, she was thoughtful and placatory.
I can tell the Secretary of State that if I ever found myself having to go into a fire fight, I should be very happy to have her at my side. We would regularly disagree, and I am sure that she must occasionally be quite an uncomfortable colleague to have around the
Cabinet Table, but her commitment to her responsibilities shines through. I am happy to pay tribute to her performance, not only in this debate, but throughout her tenure in office.I have no registrable interest in the debate, but I am a trustee of World Relief, a major Christian charity that works in several of the poorest countries of the world. We work on behalf of churches, primarily through indigenous churches, including redevelopment work, microeconomic development work and working with maternal care and with children.
I therefore disagree with the supercilious comment of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), about whose speech and attitude I have nothing complimentary to say. There are hon. Members in all parties who are committed to humanitarian concerns. They act on that in their own time, in their own way and for their own reasons, in my case, largely for Christian motives.
I want to consider children in that context, but I wish to make some other comments first. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the debate has not been partisan. Some hon. Members who are against the war or the United States—both traditions flourish in the country and the House—could use the subject as a stalking horse for another debate on whether we should go to war. I do not belong to that fraternity. As the right hon. Lady knows, I broadly support the Government's action. I believe that Iraq poses a serious threat to the world and to us. Like every other sensible human being, I view war as a last, not a first resort. However, war is sometimes the lesser evil. In that spirit, I want to make one point in the short time allowed.
We have already heard many statistics about the terrible plight of children in Iraq. We have heard about the large number of stillbirths, the high infant mortality rate and the malnutrition—there is no point in repeating those facts. However, bearing the statistics in mind, I remind the Secretary of State of Christian Aid's comments on its website in October last year. It stated that
- "the humanitarian needs of the civilian population during and after any conflict must be met . . . When drawing up plans for any military action, it is the responsibility of the warring parties to guarantee access and provide sufficient resources for the provision of independent humanitarian assistance . . . As Christian Aid can verify, the war in Afghanistan revealed a huge gap between assertions that humanitarian space would be created for the delivery of aid and the reality on the ground".
We have heard that the children are already hurting. However, when war comes and refugees start to move, many will be children. Children need special help, facilities and food. They need grown-ups who have expertise and a commitment to focus on their needs
above those of others. As we all know, there is always the danger that we plan for mass humanitarian aid and forget specific needs.The Government delight in appointing tsars. I should like the House to appoint the Secretary of State the children's tsar for Iraq as a result of the debate. I have limited confidence in the United Nations. I have limited confidence in big multinational organisations, because I have been where the right hon. Lady has been. I have more confidence in our ability to set ourselves certain tasks and goals, and in a strong and committed Secretary of State ensuring that they are met.
The right hon. Lady could do the world and the people of Iraq a service if she would let her officials get on with dealing with the big multinational institutions, and she would become passionate about making sure that the consequences of war are ameliorated to the best of her ability, which, as we all understand, will be limited. I ask her to make a commitment about the after-effects, for the children.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |