Previous SectionIndexHome Page


3 Feb 2003 : Column 33—continued

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): As one who believes that the Prime Minister is giving strong national leadership, which deserves support across the House, may I ask him to say a bit more about the middle east peace process? Does he accept that nothing is better

3 Feb 2003 : Column 34

calculated to bring the Arab states on side than seeing that a really determined attempt is being made to resolve the terrible problems that divide Palestine and the Israelis? Will he consider taking another personal initiative, notwithstanding that his last one was snubbed, during the next few, what could be perilous, weeks? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just reminded me, on 10 February there is a follow-up meeting to the one that we had. There has been quite a lot of progress out of that meeting. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Incidentally, I also believe—I will choose my words carefully—that the absence of a sense of real progress on the Israel-Palestine issue is a far bigger worry in terms of recruiting people to terrorism than is the pursuit of Iraq over weapons of mass destruction. That is why it is important that we deal with this. I also think that one of the benefits of what has happened in the past few months is that there is consensus internationally on the two-state solution. That is a huge step forward. Everyone now agrees that Israel needs to be recognised by all its neighbours, confident about its own security, and that any Palestinian state must be viable. That is an issue that will be pushed forward, I hope soon.

Jim Knight (South Dorset): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to persuade the United States to remain engaged with the United Nations, but given the apparent inability of France and Germany to be persuaded of the UN route, is that route still viable?

The Prime Minister: I am an optimist in pursuit of this. Last summer, there was a certain amount of scepticism as to whether we would achieve the first UN resolution and we did; in the end, we achieved it unanimously. I entirely understand the hesitation and anxiety that have been expressed not just in this country but in other countries. Of course, people do not want us to engage in conflict if we can possibly avoid it. However, what is important is that if it is the case that UN inspectors continue to certify that Iraq is not fully co-operating, there is a logic in that that will bring everyone—I hope everyone—on board. Otherwise, the whole authority of the UN, which we all agree should be upheld, would be undermined.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): The Prime Minister is absolutely right to stand by the UN resolution and to want to pursue matters through the UN route. In that, he will have the support of the majority of this House, but I am sure that he is as concerned as I am that at the moment he certainly does not have the support of a very large proportion—we know not exactly what—of the British public. One reason is that in the 12 years during which, as he rightly points out, we have been trying to sort out the Iraq situation, the issue of military force has come to a head only since the 11 September tragedy, and a large number of the British people do not yet see the conjunction between the Iraqi situation and international terrorism. What is he going to do to explain to more people that

3 Feb 2003 : Column 35

there is a conjunction, so that if he has to commit our forces, he and—more importantly—the forces will have the support of the British people?

The Prime Minister: That is a very good point and a fair one, and in many ways it is the difficultly that we have with this issue. I believe that 11 September was a wake-up call to the world. It was an extremely important moment when something happened that we thought could never possibly happen: modern technology and terrorist fanaticism came together in the most devastating way for the people of the United States and for the world. What is interesting is that at our press conference on Friday, President Bush made the point that a few days before 11 September he was discussing how we ameliorated the sanctions regime against Iraq.

It is true that 11 September has changed a lot of thinking. That is why, a few days afterwards—on 14 September—I made my first statement on the matter to the House, in which I said that the next issue that we had to deal with was weapons of mass destruction. We have constantly tried to explain to people that these two issues are not separate. People say to us, "Why don't you pursue al-Qaeda and forget about Iraq for the moment?", but we have got to go on both tracks because both represent the threats of the fanatical over the rational. They represent threats to the civilised world from acts of barbarity, and both represent those people who have absolutely no compunction whatever about the amount of human life that they take, for a cause that can never be negotiated on.

So the fact is that these two issues are intimately linked. People talk about the potential links between Iraq and al-Qaeda—there is a lot of speculation—but without a doubt, if we do not deal with both of these issues at some point terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will come together. It is simply not possible to have a situation in which states are developing and trading in this stuff, with their scientists being hired by the top bidder, and in which these terrorist groups are well-financed and able to recruit people even to die in their cause. It is not possible to have those two threats operating and for them not to come together at a certain point, and the consequences would then be devastating.

People ask me why I am, in a sense, risking everything politically on this issue, but I say to them in all honesty that I do not want to be the Prime Minister to whom people point the finger in history and say, "You knew perfectly well that those two threats were there, and you didn't do anything about it. In the end, you took the easy way out. You said, 'No, let's park it a little. Let's leave it—let's wait and see how it goes.'" We know that these threats are there and we have got to deal with them. I think that, in the end, in situations such as this the British people always ultimately respond, because they have a common sense and a faith that sees them through.

Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): Following on from that point, and in relation to the Prime Minister's conversations with other world leaders, can he tell us whether a shared and growing concern exists that, if the United Nations does not reform from the 1945 model to face the very threats that

3 Feb 2003 : Column 36

he has just talked about, there is an acute danger that it will end up looking like the League of Nations instead of the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right, which is why we must exhibit firmness of purpose now.

Tony Baldry (Banbury): Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), what specific discussions are taking place with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other UN agencies in terms of the international community's response to the humanitarian consequences of conflict with Iraq?

The Prime Minister: Detailed discussions on the issue between allies and the UN are going on, as last Thursday's debate in the House indicated. We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan.

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): My right hon. Friend will be aware that the UN estimates that between 142,000 and 206,000 Iraqis died as a direct consequence of the Gulf war. How does he square his answer on humanitarian issues with the Pentagon's declared intention to use up to 10 times the firepower that was used 12 years ago?

The Prime Minister: First, in respect of speculation on military plans, it is important that we debate those plans when they are fully developed, rather than press reports of them. Secondly, I assure my hon. Friend that if military action begins, we will make every possible effort to minimise any civilian casualties, as we managed to do in Kosovo and Afghanistan. We will be able to do that to a greater extent in Iraq.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): If the Prime Minister accepts that the situation in the middle east is one of the prime causes of terrorism in the world today, will he explain, clearly and concisely, how a war with Iraq will fight terrorism and help the middle east process that he is currently pursuing?

The Prime Minister: I have given the reasons for the action that we are taking in respect of Iraq. It is important that we make every effort to push forward the middle east peace process, which is what we are going to do. But we cannot say, as it were, that we will do one, but not the other; we must do both. If we believe that there is a threat in respect of Iraq, surely we are obliged to deal with it. We have tried to do so through the UN process and, if we can do that, it will be far better. As for the middle east peace process, we must make what progress we can—[Interruption.] I am sorry; hon. Members must forgive me for a moment. We are trying to make progress on the middle east peace process, but that progress should not absolve us from the duty and the need to tackle also the issue of Iraq.


Next Section

IndexHome Page