| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must bring hon. Members back to the wording of the motion before the House.
Mr. Foulkes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I say that the resignation speeches would have been treated with greater respect if they had been made a little earlier?
As to the decision to get rid of the dictator, I would like to quote an e-mail. E-mails are suddenly becoming dangerous things, but I shall quote one of many that I received in support of what I have said. It says as a postscript at the end:
- "I notice that the media is not talking about Dr. Kelly's view that regime change was the only answer in Iraq."
Some of the critics ask where the weapons of mass destruction are—[Interruption.] They are doing it again. That implies that Saddam Hussein never had any weapons of mass destruction. That is the logic of what they say. Well, what did he use to invade Kuwait and Iran? With what did he kill the hundreds of thousands of people, many at Halabja? Why did he turn out the weapons inspectors in 1998 and refuse to let them back in? What did he have to hide? Saddam Hussein was very good at hiding weapons, particularly chemical and biological weapons, which are not difficult to hide.
In conclusion, today's debate is welcome and has been constructive, but I was not sure about the purpose of yesterday's debate. It seemed to me a desperate attempt by the official Opposition to show that they were indeed the official Opposition and would not be upstaged by the Liberal Democrats.
I finish by dealing with another criticism of those who supported the Government's action—that Saddam Hussein was only one dictator and that there were others around the world. I am just as concerned about Mugabe and about the regime in Burma. I have not heard much from Opposition Members about Burma or much support for Aung San Suu Kyi—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not hear anything about Burma, because the motion before the House is about the reconstruction of Iraq.
Mr. Foulkes: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the reconstruction of Iraq would not have
been possible unless we had got rid of Saddam Hussein. I am proud to be one of those who voted in favour of the action that did get rid of him.5.43 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I was amused to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I have heard a lot of him on the radio and seen him on television throughout much of the summer, and he has loyally advanced the Government's cause. I rather suspect, however, that he picked up the wrong notes when he came to today's debate. He picked up the "Let's support Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and others in the frame under the Hutton inquiry" notes, rather than the notes that he should have made and thought about for today's debate on the Liberal Democrat motion and the Government's amendment. But there we are: he is an enjoyable Member of the House and we all listen to him with some amusement.
I have the greatest respect for the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for the manner in which he advanced his case this afternoon and for the clever way in which he said that this afternoon's debate should not descend into party-political argument. That makes it hugely impolite to be rude about the Liberal Democrat motion. I shall not be impolite, but I will have one or two things to say about it.
The motion seeks to portray the Liberal Democrats as concerned about Iraq and its future. I have no doubt that they are, but they leave reality behind when it comes to the implementation of those concerns on the ground. It is unreal to expect that the process of political transition, including the restoration of sovereignty and democratic control to the Iraqi people, can be achieved under the auspices of the UN. It is unreal to demand that the entire responsibility for the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq should be under an Iraqi provisional Government, with or without the assistance of the United Nations, and it is unreal to replace existing security arrangements with a multinational force under a unified command obliged—I stress the word "obliged", which appears in the motion—to report to the Security Council.
I accept that the Liberal Democrats—at least, most of them—did not vote for the US-UK military operation earlier this year that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein—
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): None of us did.
Mr. Garnier: Well at least they were consistent. I voted for the Government on that occasion, but I shall not now rehearse the arguments for and against the proposal to take military action, both because it has taken place and cannot be undone and because the facts that we now have to deal with—as those responsible for holding the Government to account—are somewhat different and demand different answers.
It is true to say that the UK's influence in the Security Council and the General Assembly has always been high, even if not always acceptable to every member of it. We are now in a position to exert even greater influence than before, because we are to assume the
presidency of the Security Council this month. We are helped by that and by having high calibre professional public servants posted to our delegation in New York. I am reminded that earlier this year, just before the war started, I was part of an all-party Anglo-American parliamentary group delegation to the UN, where I met Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the then UN ambassador, who is now—I am happy to say—posted to our delegation in Baghdad as the Government's special representative. He represents exactly the high level of professional assistance that Governments of all colours have been able to rely on. It was on that occasion also that I was fortunate enough to meet again Fiona Watson, whom I knew from when she worked in the Library. It was clear when I met her in February that she was full of enthusiasm for the work that she was doing as a public servant for the United Nations. It is all the more regrettable that such a star was snuffed out in August this year. It is therefore with some sadness that I take part in this debate, as well as with some happy memories, because it reminds me of that valuable and wonderful person.It is also fair to say that our influence in the United Nations has been high historically because we have had the political and diplomatic will to ensure that our national interests are advanced and protected on the world stage, either by ourselves, as for example in the Falkland Islands, or with allies, as in the two Gulf wars. In this Gulf war, we were of course in a much smaller alliance, but that does not mean that our participation in a military operation was entirely selfish. Indeed, there is a powerful argument for saying that what we did with the US this year is what the United Nations should have done—no doubt through the agency of countries such as our own with the military capacity to perform the task—four, five or six years ago.
It has been said that we have no business becoming involved in Iraq, certainly without the sanction of a Security Council resolution specifically mandating military intervention. Some also argue that everything should be done under the auspices of the United Nations. I disagree. It is not the duty of this Government, or any Government of the United Kingdom, to export the diplomatic or military implementation of our foreign policy to other bodies, no matter how much those other bodies deserve our respect. The United Nations cannot achieve post-conflict success in Iraq, as the Liberal Democrats want, because it does not have the resources, the administration or the civilian and military personnel to do what the motion requires of it.
It is a truism that the UN works best—that it perhaps can only work at all—when the Security Council is united. In areas where the national interests of its membership do not coincide—as has been the case with Iraq before, during and after the military operation—it is foolish to expect anything much of value to flow from demands that the UN behave as though matters have been agreed when, in fact, they have not.
I agree with view of Edward Mortimer, the UN Secretary General's director of communications, as expressed in the July issue of "World Today". He said that the UN was
- "a mechanism for mobilising joint action by states and peoples towards agreed goals."
Having got that off my chest, I must say that I do not believe that the success of the UN in Iraq—or anywhere else—should be measured only in terms of its relationship with the US, and in particular with the present Administration of President George Bush. Clearly, the UN's effectiveness will be governed to a large extent by its relationship with its most powerful member. However, I deprecate the ritualistic denigration of the US Government and their officials as though that were a well argued and well thought-out position that advanced the cause of peace and prosperity in Iraq.
The US is not beyond criticism, of course, but its overall record in this matter is worthy of more than begrudging recognition. Praise is due to a country, and a people, that has done and prevented what the UN should have done and prevented some time ago. I for one am happy that the Government recognise that our strategic interests are well served by a close alliance with the US. It is worth remembering that the US has spent more in treasure and human lives on trying to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the problems in Iraq than any other UN member. I say that even though from time to time we have had fundamental disagreements with the US on matters not just of detail but of wider policy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |