| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, as someone who totally disagrees with his views on military intervention in Iraq, I agree that all those major or minor figures who are detained should in due course be brought to justice if charges are to be made? Has not the case of Milosevic demonstrated that, when a powerful figure is detained, charged and arrested, every facility, according to the rule of law, is given to that individual? There is no reason why that should not happen in respect of those who are detained at the moment, if charges are levelled against them in Iraq.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he well knows, although we disagree on a number of issues, we make common cause on others. One of them is civil liberties and those who are affected by the law, be it national or international. To take up the case of Mr. Milosevic for a moment, he is being tried by a special court set up under the aegis of the United Nations. There are now two such courts and they are concurrently running in respect of Rwanda and Bosnia. I concur entirely with those courts, the way in which they were set up and the way in which those who are before them were brought before them, because there was a measure of transparency in all that. There was a measure of transparency in the arrest of Milosevic, who was arrested and given up by his own people into the custody of that court. In Rwanda, although the position is much more opaque, a similar situation pertains.
It is a matter of concern to us that that is not the case in respect of the detention of Tariq Aziz and others, and nor is it the case, I feel bound to say, in respect of the detention of 600 or so individuals in Camp X-Ray in Cuba, who have now been detained for a very considerable period. What concerns us—it concerns me as a friend of America, which I have always been—is the effect that that form of apparently arbitrary justice will have on America's reputation and that of its allies. I repeat that the more powerful a nation is—there has never been a more powerful nation on earth than the United States of America—the greater the necessity that it should adhere to the rules and canons of international law.
The detention of Tariq Aziz falls to the occupying forces, which have the right under the fourth Geneva convention to implement the laws of the nation that they occupy. Thus, detention itself is not an issue. If he is thought to have committed crimes in due course—I imagine that there is perfectly good evidence that he has been complicit in crimes—detention is not an issue. What is at issue is the nature of that detention and the fact that we do not know anything about its circumstances, whether he is represented, the extent to which he is subject to interrogation and the form of the interrogation to which he is subject. All those matters may be entirely allowable under the aegis of international law, but it is essential that the international community should be aware of what is happening in its name. If we are to be part of a coalition of the willing rebuilding Iraq in a way that brings us all together in common cause, it is essential that the transparency of justice should be maintained.
I hope that the Minister, in answering those questions, will give us some insight into what the Government believe to be the position with Mr. Aziz and other detainees, when they can be brought to trial, the circumstances of their present detention, and the nature of the representation and trial that they may in due course expect.
7.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity that has been accorded us by the Father of the House in raising a matter that is important to us all. Certainly, it presents the Government with an opportunity to update Members on the situation regarding Tariq Aziz specifically, but also on the wider Iraq issues concerning detainment and the overall reconstruction and rebuilding process that is taking place in Iraq.
Turning first to Tariq Aziz's detention, the Father of the House and other Members will be aware of a written parliamentary answer recently provided by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), which says:
- "Tariq Aziz voluntarily surrendered to the coalition forces in Baghdad and is currently in custody. The coalition partners have had the opportunity to interview Mr. Aziz on a number of topics and this will continue."—[Official Report, 3 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 3W.]
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Does that mean that we, as coalition partners, have not had or sought access to such a key figure? That is surprising. Surely the
questioning is not exclusively a matter for the United States, but also for us, and we would want to have access to him. Why have we not, and when will we?
Mr. Rammell: As my hon. Friend will be aware, under the terms of the coalition Iraq is being divided into different parts, with different nations having responsibility for different sectors, and people who are captured in a certain area will be a matter for those detaining authorities. Clearly, there is a process of communication. I am trying to update the House on the position as of this evening. If Members have further questions, I am more than happy to pursue them after the debate.
I should like to take this opportunity to add a number of further points about the coalition's general handling of detainees and prisoners of war. It is too early to determine the nature of any criminal charges that Tariq Aziz and other Iraqi detainees may face; and it is not for this Government to bring those charges. Meanwhile, it bears repetition that those prisoners or detainees, including Tariq Aziz and others on the US list of most wanted former members of the Saddam regime suspected of war crimes are, of course, being dealt with in accordance with international law and the Geneva conventions.
Mr. Dalyell: If it is not for the Government to bring charges, who is to bring charges?
Mr. Rammell: The Father of the House anticipates what I am about to say about the way in which I think justice will be brought forward in Iraq.
UN Security Council resolution 1483, which was adopted on 22 May by unanimity, affirms the need for accountability for crimes and atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime. It also appeals to member states to deny safe haven to those members of the previous regime who are alleged to be responsible for crimes and atrocities and to support actions to bring them to justice.
The discovery of mass graves in Iraq that became possible only after the fall of the regime has brought home to us all the genuine horrors of Saddam Hussein's regime. The crimes alleged to have been committed by that regime against its own people were, of course, already well known: hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis are reported to have been its victims. We have always believed that the Iraqi leaders most responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should be brought to justice as soon as possible. I want to make it clear that that is not victor's justice—I know that that is a concern of the Father of the House and other Members in the Chamber—but will be a system of justice brought forward in accordance with international law and the Geneva conventions.
There are strong arguments for allowing the Iraqis themselves to bring to justice those who have committed crimes against them, and we will need to see what sort of investigative and trial processes they can adopt. We know that, under Saddam's regime, Iraq's judicial system became heavily corrupted. That is beyond dispute. Many judges had to leave Iraq and that has unquestionably reduced the Iraqi judicial system's capacity to cope with legacy crimes. Iraq will need
international help to rehabilitate its justice system, and we are willing to play a part, together with our coalition partners, in achieving that end.I should like to give the House some of the political context within which the rebuilding of the judicial system is taking place. It is important to note that UN resolution 1483 delivers on our commitment to lift UN sanctions, set out in the UK's statement produced at the Azores summit, "A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People". Resolution 1483 also stresses the fundamental right of the Iraqi people to determine their own political future and control their own resources, and welcomes the commitment of all parties concerned to support the creation of an environment in which they may do so as soon as possible. It explicitly expresses our resolve that the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly.
In accordance with Resolution 1483, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has appointed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN high commissioner for human rights, as his special representative for Iraq. Mr. de Mello will work with the coalition provisional administration, the Iraqis and the wider international community to implement resolution 1483. It is important to note that the central political element of resolution1483 specifically encourages efforts by the people of Iraq to form a representative Government based on the rule of law to afford equal rights and justice to all Iraqi citizens. Crucially, the resolution supports the formation by the people of Iraq—with the help of the coalition authority, working with the UN special representative—of an Iraqi interim Administration as a transitional Administration run by Iraqis, until an internationally recognised representative Government are established at a later stage.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |