| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Mar 2003 : Column 197—continued
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is not a question of Saddam Hussein giving up his weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. If he has retained a large quantity of anthrax, for example, he could easily spare some of it for terrorists, if he wanted to, without giving up the potential to use it himself.
Mr. Breed: I accept that it depends on how much he has. He may retain some and give up some; however, we have yet to determine whether he has any. He has made strenuous efforts not to divulge his weapons and to keep them as secret as he can.
The Liberal Democrats remain concerned that the Government's Iraq policy may exacerbate, and not decrease, the threat from terrorism, on the one hand by increasing antipathy towards the west among many communities, and, on the other, by fracturing the carefully constructed alliance against terrorism that has achieved much in the past 18 months. We need only look to Afghanistan to see an example of how military attack, when not backed with a commitment to security and substantial financial and humanitarian aid, can provide only a short-term solution. The current situation in Afghanistan is shameful. When put into context, the Government's pledge of £200 million looks modest. The total $5 billion of funds that was pledged at Tokyo was only half the estimated necessary cost of rebuilding Afghanistan, and most of that has already been spent on emergency humanitarian aid.
The Prime Minister promised not to let the world
- "walk away from Afghanistan, as it has done so many times before."
Finally the Government have made it clear that they will continue to tackle what they see as the linked problem of rogue states and the sponsorship of terrorism
- "until the threat to this country is dealt with."
The chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), gave us a text and a quotation. I will end with a sentiment with which I know he is familiar. It is the peacemakers who are blessed.
2.38 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): I congratulate the Select Committee on producing an admirable report. Even though it contains items with which some people may disagree, it is, as the Chairman said, very informative and useful at this time. I agree with the Committee that the UK was right to take a leading role in the campaign against terror. We were right, after the terrible events of 11 September, to identify fully with the United States. It was also right to say that 11 September should not be regarded solely as a US tragedy but as a global tragedy that the world should work together on. In many ways, it is a pity that the Bush Administration have not recognised that sufficiently.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) spoke graciously about the way in which the Prime Minister helped to build a broad international coalition. We have a major danger to tackle, and the greatest danger of all is the possible combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As I have previously suggested in this place, a suicide bomber driving around this neighbourhood with a nuclear device in the back of his van could wipe out the whole of Westminster, Whitehall and Buckingham palace, creating a major disaster against which we could do little to defend ourselves.
It is terribly important to use accurate definitions. There is an important difference, which was well defined in what the Prime Minister said immediately after 11 September, between unconditional terrorists and political terrorists, although both are appalling. By unconditional terrorists, I mean groups such as al-Qaeda, the Aum sect or other apocalyptical or fanatical sects, whose goals are not really attainable and which feel that destroying vast numbers of people is a desirable aim.
We should distinguish between that form of terrorism and political terrorism, such as that of the Northern Ireland paramilitaries and some of the other groups that have been mentioned in the debate. As such groups have specific political aims, it is not in their interest to try to destroy large numbers of people. That would counteract their aims. Evil though all terrorism is, it is important to make those distinctions, despite the fact that there can be overlap between the bad acts that such people commit.
It is also important to define the term "weapons of mass destruction" much more carefully. The US National Academy of Sciences has said that it is dangerous to use that term because it blurs the distinction between nuclear weapons and the whole range of radiological, biological and chemical weapons, many of which are not really weapons of mass
destruction. A tremendous fuss has been made about ricin. It is lethal as a means of assassination but it is not particularly easy to use as a weapon of mass destruction. It is important to make that distinction clear.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely the distinction is not between nuclear weapons and the other weapons that the hon. Gentleman describes but between the lethality of the weapons concerned. Just as there are nuclear weapons that kill many people and mini-nuclear weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction, so ricin is not a weapon of mass destruction, but anthrax is.
Mr. Savidge: Experiments in the US suggest that even anthrax needs to be highly weaponised. There are considerably difficulties in using it as a weapon. The distinctions are important.
International unity is vital in the campaign against terrorism. There is no doubt that Iraq has been a great cause of division in the international community. However, its military forces are weak and the missiles that it has retained are limited in range, accuracy and number. Its unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—can travel 500 miles at most, so it is absurd scaremongering on the part of the United States President to say that Iraq could attack the US with biological and chemical weapons at any moment.
The Iraqis do not have nuclear weapons—they were destroyed—and the impression formed by the inspectors so far is that the nuclear weapons programme has not been restarted and that the evidence produced to show that it had was fake. That point is crucial and I thought that it had been accepted by the Foreign Secretary, although the Minister seemed to question it.
On biological and chemical weapons, dossiers have been produced by the Government, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the CIA. I do not accuse them of not making intelligent guesses, but the evidence from the inspectors tends to the view that we have probably overestimated the number of such weapons that remain in Iraq. Certainly, the amount is considerably less than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.
On Iraq's links with terrorism, there are no proven connections between Iraq and 11 September. Connections with al-Qaeda have usually proved false. Havel denied the truth of the Czech connection that he had previously suggested. The video of Osama bin Laden was absurdly latched on to by Colin Powell; it gave no proof.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Was the hon. Gentleman as impressed as I was by the clear definition given by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) during our debate on Iraq of the dangers of creating an even more fertile atmosphere for terrorism by a pre-emptive strike from the United States, possibly supported by the United Kingdom? Terrorism and Iraq are two connected yet separate issues.
Mr. Savidge: I take the hon. Gentleman's point completely and will try to deal with it at the end of my speech.
Our intelligence services say that there are no current links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has found an ambiguous
formulation, which seems to imply that there could be links although there is no evidence for them. In fact, the strongest link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is that at one time both were supplied with weapons by some of the right-wing hawks who now demand war against Iraq.There are links with certain terrorist groups, but I would make the distinction that those groups are political terrorists. George Tenet was forced by the Senate to declare the results of the CIA investigations, which were that the CIA believed there to be no evidence that Saddam Hussein was currently likely to use whatever weapons of mass destruction he held, or to pass them on to terrorists, but that the risk of that would be greatly increased by an invasion.
As the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee, pointed out, Iraq is only one of the many sources of weapons of mass destruction, but others are more likely to pass them to terrorists. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred to an unfortunate phrase in the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which stated:
- "Disarming Iraq removes the very real and catastrophic threat of international terrorists getting hold of weapons of mass destruction."
The choice is not between going to war and doing nothing; it is about continuing with intrusive inspections and proper flight surveillance. The inspectors say that can be achieved within months with the degree of co-operation that has been obtained. There can then be monitoring and constant verification and containment.
The demand that Saddam give positive, active and enthusiastic compliance like South Africa did is meaningless. South Africa was getting rid of weapons voluntarily; we know that Saddam is not doing that. The proper comparison would be with decommissioning in Northern Ireland.
The difficulties of decommissioning have been grossly exaggerated. We have much better technical facilities and much more intrusive inspections are being undertaken than in the 1990s. Terrible exaggerations are being made. Everyone believes that Iraq is the same size as France, yet France is a quarter as large again. Saddam controls less than half of Iraq and most of that is sand and desert where the type of cat and mouse game suggested by Colin Powell is much more difficult to play.
Continued exaggeration and distortion is a tragedy and a cause of grave, grave worry. The Select Committee found that the dodgy Downing street document was accepted by the Prime Minister; it was commissioned by his office and presented by him to the House. That is a matter of grave concern when we are discussing something as serious as being led into pre-emptive war.
I fear that in the US scaremongering is leading to warmongering, and we must not let that happen. There is danger in the fact that the arguments for war are constantly being changed, especially when we are talking about that dangerous concept of pre-emptive war to which the Chairman of the Select Committee referred. The UN resolutions are not sufficient grounds
for starting a war. There is no immediate or imminent threat of attack from Iraq. We need evidence of a real threat, plus a second resolution, for war conceivably to be justified.I do not know what talk of "unreasonable vetoes" means. Perhaps we should be talking about "unreasonable proposed resolutions" or "unreasonable presidents". I hope that we do not have to talk about "unreasonable Prime Ministers".
If there is no second resolution, it is surely not acceptable that this country should be led to war without Parliament at least being consulted first. That is absolutely vital. We do not want this country to be led to a war without a second resolution and then Parliament to be told that we would betray our troops if we criticised the war. Frankly, if we were led to war in those circumstances, that would betray the troops. It would betray the British people and the principles that we should be standing for, and it would certainly betray the UN.
I want to conclude by giving some of the reasons why this would be an extremely dangerous war to get involved in: it would be in breach of international law—that is certainly what most international jurists have said—and it would be terribly damaging to the UN. There is the danger that, if biological and chemical weapons were used against Israel and that led to a nuclear response, the human catastrophe, plus the follow-on effects, would be beyond belief.
If Iraq is invaded, there is a much greater danger that whatever personnel or materials Saddam has from a weapons of mass destruction programme will be dispersed across the world. In fact, the danger is that, by that very attack, we will increase the push for proliferation, particularly given the US policies suggesting that it might break its agreements under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Invasion could open the Pandora's box in the middle east referred to by King Abdullah of Jordan. It could distract from and undermine the campaign against terrorism. It could provoke much greater resentment in the Arab countries and perhaps the whole Islamic world and, for that very reason, it could inflame terrorism, rather than reduce it.
We face a particular threat in Britain. While in the United Kingdom most people may regard the Prime Minister as having played a moderating role in relation to the Bush Administration, people elsewhere will see him as the essential co-conspirator in bringing about a war, so we will have an extra threat of suffering from terrorism.
Let us suppose that most of the fears that I have expressed were not realised and that there was a quick war. I would still say that there are two other appalling dangers, the first of which is embarking on the whole concept of pre-emptive war. Whom does the west attack next? Who follows our example? What is the difference between this and what was condemned in the first two counts of the Nuremberg tribunal in 1946—conspiracy towards war and crimes against the peace?
The final point that I would make is that if, as Nelson Mandela has suggested, this is a recipe for international anarchy, in a world where we cannot disinvent weapons of mass destruction, surely the future for the whole of humanity would be extremely bleak.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |