| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advanced sight of it. The House will have shared my mixed feelings as we learned from Saturday's edition of The Times that we nearly lost the right hon. Gentleman as Foreign Secretary before the war began, and that our support apparently saved him. I suppose that every silver lining has a cloud.
Although the war is over, our armed forces are still engaged in Iraq in the promotion of public order and security and in the process of initial reconstruction. With their courage, professionalism and dedication, they are once again doing us proud. The overarching priority now is to rebuild confidence within Iraq and in the wider region. I believe that the key elements are that, along with the maintenance of public order and security, basic public services and amenities are restored; that the elimination of weapons of mass destruction is achieved; that the interim administration and any system of government that emerges from it will be genuinely representative of Iraq as a whole, including women, and will not create disfranchised minorities on religious or ethnic lines; and that real progress can be made on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
Could the Foreign Secretary reassure the House on a number of points? The Prime Minister, in his press conference this morning, insisted that weapons of mass destruction would be found in due course. He had no doubt. The Foreign Secretary seemed to dilute that view in his statement. What is his position? Is it that weapons of mass destruction will be found or that they will not be found? Will he confirm that, if they are found, independent verification will be essential? The Prime Minister had no such doubts this morning. Does the Foreign Secretary share his certainty?
Will any independent verification be carried out by the United Nations inspectors? If not, why not? Will the Foreign Secretary clarify what role the United Nations will play in the oil-for-food programme? Washington wants sanctions lifted and the oil-for-food programme phased out. France has proposed a temporary suspension of sanctions and a gradual phasing out of the oil-for-food programme. Russia wants the United Nations Secretary-General to run the entire programme until an internationally recognised Iraqi Government come into power, which, as we know, could take several years. What is the Government's view on that central question?
In looking to the future shape of the Administration and Government of Iraq, are there any democratic outcomes that the Government would find unacceptable? If so, what are they? What discussions have there been in Iraq about possible forms of government that would underwrite power-sharing and avoid disfranchisement or secession?
What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that countries such as France do not seek belatedly to engage in the commercial exploitation of Iraq? Does the Foreign Secretary share my suspicion that their recent repositioning on sanctions may have more to do with economic advantage than with altruism?
Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that members of Saddam Hussein's regime, wherever they may be hiding, will be returned to Iraq to face the legal consequences of the crimes that they perpetrated against the people of Iraq? Can he tell us yet where and under what law they will be tried?
The confidence of the whole region will be massively strengthened by genuine progress in the middle east peace process towards the two-state solution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that dialogue between the two sides, at whatever level, would be an important step
forward, and does he join me in welcoming Ariel Sharon's reported invitation to Abu Mazen to meet him in Jerusalem for discussions? Will he give such dialogue all possible encouragement, especially if the publication of the road map is further delayed? Does he foresee any reasons why it might be further delayed?We have supported the Government in the removal of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction because we believed it right and in our national interest to do so. Now, the challenge is to build confidence and stability across the region. That, too, we believe, is right and in our national interest, and so long as that remains the Government's objective and they pursue it with due competence, they will continue to have our support.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I shall answer some of the specific questions that he asked. On the role of women in any new government whom we assist in creating, we are very strongly committed to ensuring that women play a proper role inside any government. [Interruption.] I hear some muttering from behind, and I should say that I am not in partisan mode. We are committed to ensuring that women play a full role in any government of Iraq, and with luck, they will do so in the Conservative party at some time in the future. We wish to see the full implementation of United Nations resolution 1325, passed unanimously by the Security Council, which calls for wider participation by women in Governments of all countries that are member states of the United Nations. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, has already spoken today in Baghdad about the importance of ensuring that there is a proper role for women.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I am certain that WMD will be found. I am not certain where they are—such certainty seemed to be the implication of what he was saying—but I am absolutely certain that Iraq had illegal possessions of—[Hon. Members: "Had?"] Hang on a second. I am absolutely certain that Iraq had illegal possessions of weapons of mass destruction, and recently. Therefore, there is every reason why they ought to be found, and that is the position of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the oil-for-food resolutions. The oil-for-food programme is a United Nations programme that was rolled over by resolution 1472, and again last week by resolution 1476, until 3 June. It will continue as a United Nations programme until the Security Council makes decisions about the future of oil-for-food and of the sanctions regime.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether there are any democratic outcomes that are unacceptable. Well, we cannot have it both ways. If we wish to see a democracy established in Iraq as elsewhere, we have to accept that in the end, such a democracy is one in which the people of Iraq—like the people of this country—have to make up their own minds about their own future. That is the essence of democracy. Of course, there are some outcomes—outcomes that would lead to a change in the territorial integrity of Iraq—that would be unacceptable.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): Ah!
Mr. Straw: Of course that is true, because that is a matter that affects international peace and security, in
which the international community has a role. But within that, we have to establish strong and robust political institutions in Iraq, and to have some confidence and faith in the Iraqi people to run their own government—a confidence and faith in their ability that the dictator Saddam Hussein never had.
Mr. Speaker: Menzies Campbell.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Perhaps I might take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to thank you and colleagues on both sides of the House for the messages of support that have meant a great deal to me and my family in recent weeks. However—to the business of the day.
Can the Foreign Secretary give the House some illustration of what the Government envisage as a vital role for the United Nations? Does not a vital role involve more than merely acting in an advisory capacity, or being concerned with humanitarian relief? What progress has he made with his entirely sensible suggestion that there should be a United Nations-sponsored convention to consider the future of Iraq? In recognising Dr. Blix's reservations about civilian inspection in an insecure environment, does that mean that when security is established, there will be an opportunity for Dr. Blix and the inspectors to return? In the meantime, can we take it that they will be invited to provide independent verification if any suspect materials are discovered?
Dr. Blix told the Security Council before the conflict that the inspectors could complete their task in some months. What is the Government's estimate?
The appointment of Mahmoud Abbas is one of the most encouraging events in the middle east peace process for a long time. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would not have come about without the promise of the publication of the road map? Does not that make it vital to keep to the timetable in the road map, lest momentum be lost? Finally, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to make sustained representations to the Israeli Government to suspend all new settlement activity, including the building of a so-called security fence on the west bank?
Mr. Straw: May I first say how pleased I am to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his place and on such good form? I am sure that, in saying that, I reflect the sentiment of the whole House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's wise contributions, which he has made over many years, have been greatly missed by us all.
I was asked about the vital role for the UN to which President Bush and the Prime Minister committed themselves at Camp David and again at the Hillsborough summit a few weeks ago. There is an essential role for the UN to play—for example, in the suspension or lifting of sanctions; the future of the oil-for-food programme; the question of the title to Iraq's oil; working alongside the coalition and any putative Iraqi representative domestic institutions in building
governance; and, more generally, supporting reconstruction. There is also the issue of weapons inspections.However, precisely how the UN's vital role turns out does not depend solely on the United Kingdom and the United States, the two key coalition partners, but on the degree to which we can secure active co-operation from our other partners in the Security Council. It is a matter of history that we were able to secure that co-operation in the run-up to resolution 1441, but after 8 November, we were unable to maintain it and, sadly, no second resolution was possible, leaving the international community divided.
In the UN headquarters in New York and in capital cities, detailed discussions are now taking place about how to ensure that the UN is able to play a vital role, but to do so constructively in a way that is not disruptive of the coalition, nor gratuitously disruptive of the process towards democratisation in Iraq. I am as committed as anyone—and so is the Prime Minister—to the fullest possible role for the UN, but it requires work, activity and good will by others as well as ourselves.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for what he said about the middle east peace process. I should like to take this opportunity to respond to one of his questions to which I previously omitted to reply—whether I welcomed Prime Minister Sharon's offer to hold meetings with Prime Minister Abu Mazen as soon as the road map has been published. Of course I welcome that, as I welcome any positive steps by either side in the conflict to put the terrible and violent past behind them.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether we are ready to call for the suspension of all new settlements. Yes, we have already done so, but I am happy to reinforce that point. We are also keen to see an end to the building of the fence, which is taking more land that belongs to the Palestinians into what amounts to Israeli territory.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |