Examination of Witnesses(Questions 20-28)
WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2003
RT HON
CLARE SHORT
MP, MR ALISTAIR
FERNIE AND
MR PETER
TROY
Chris McCafferty
20. Secretary of State, can I ask you to give
the Committee your view on the longer term humanitarian implications
of military action? I am thinking particularly of how do you see
the danger of other states perhaps hoping for territorial gain
in the land currently occupied by the state known as Iraq? Do
you see internal conflict amongst the many ethnic groups, and
the Kurds are an obvious, very large ethnic minority group that
may have an interest in a separate state and the Turkmens, who
really are very close to the Turkish in terms of culture and history?
Which areas do you see as being at risk and what things can the
international community do to try and alleviate those potential
problems?
(Clare Short) It is absolutely essential, and I think
this is agreed across the international system, that Iraq remains
united as a country on its existing borders. It would be a nightmare
if different groups started breaking it up and the national borders
in the surrounding area might be changed, that would lead to chaos
and very, very great dangers of terrible humanitarian suffering.
Everyone is clear that Iraq must remain a country within its existing
borders and that the military have to prepare to prevent the outbreak
of ethnic conflict. This is a country that has been grossly misgoverned
and repressed and some of the ethnic groups that are seen as not
being supportive of the Baghdad regime have been deeply repressed.
The danger is if current structures of authority break down an
outbreak of conflict between some of those groupings is very great
and could lead to chaos. With 60% of people depending on Oil-for-Food
if you get fighting and chaos we could get a disastrous humanitarian
situation. Keeping order in order to be able to prevent people
killing each other but also to keep basic food supplies coming
through to people is very, very important indeed. There is the
other danger, I have talked about the danger of the use of chemical
and biological weapons, the danger of oil wells being booby-trapped
and fired, which happened in the Kuwait War, could disrupt sources
of food in their own way but there are humanitarian risks for
that.
(Mr Fernie) I think it is well known there are public
health dangers if oil wells are set on fire, they vary depending
on the nature of the oil well and the quality of the crude oil.
Some of the worse case scenarios are very grim.
(Clare Short) I should repeat there are a lot of military
people who think if there is military action it will all be over
very quickly and people will be pleased, that is one scenario
but there are other risks there. I am not saying all these are
inevitable but they need to be thought through and prevented.
21. Very briefly, you did say earlier you saw
a risk of IDPs going into desert areas where there is not enough
water. Potentially there could be fighting simply because there
is not enough water and there is not enough food. Do you see that
as a particular problem as well within ordinary Iraqi groups?
(Clare Short) That is what I said. If Oil-for-Food
broke down, if there was so much disorder food and basic medical
supplies could not be kept going and given to people who are very
badly malnourished as it is then we would have chaos and terrible
suffering. There is no doubt that is a very serious risk that
needs to be avoided.
Tony Worthington
22. About Oil-for-Food again and how it works,
at the moment Iraq receives revenue that it is supposed to use
for food but the criticism is that it does not fully. Is the realistic
assumption that there is going to be no Oil-for-Food Programme
because what would be the interest of the Iraqi Government in
maintaining it?
(Clare Short) Somebody made this point before, Oil-for-Food,
and it is not generous food, it is not generous supplies, people
are not given the basic things they need, that is why there is
so much ill-health. Even on an optimistic scenario, a limited
amount of military action that is relatively successful, Oil-for-Food
could be disrupted, that is a very high risk. We need to be planning,
as we said before, that if the current regime leadership falls
that new structures are very rapidly put in place using those
delivery mechanisms. We are talking about it, trying to prepare
for it but that would need to be accomplished to stop people going
hungry.
23. The most realistic assumption one would
have to make, given that you do not think the system will persist,
is that the whole nation needs feeding, is 60% at the moment.
(Clare Short) Indeed. One would expect it to increase
but 60% is a heck of a lot already. This is a very serious problem
and it needs thinking through and making preparations for. I think
military planners are aware of it.
(Mr Fernie) I think they are very aware of it. There
are informal discussions going on in New York looking at ways
in which Oil-for-Food can be continued or disrupted for as short
a period as possible. I am not sure I want to start a sentence
with, "In fairness to Saddam", but Saddam has increased
rations under Oil-for-Food recently. He has an interest in continuing
to feed his people to maintain their morale for as long as he
can. If we are in a situation, which I think is what you are referring
to, where conflict is underway and part of the country is controlled
by Saddam and part of it is not the UN will need to think carefully
about the existing mechanism it has in place whereby oil is sold,
money goes into a UN controlled escrow account and contracts are
then let for the delivery of food. That is fine if there are ways
whereby some form of that system can be modified in a way to continue
to operate as soon as possible.
(Clare Short) If oil production is disrupted that
will complicate things. I have been party to discussions about
if parts of the country fall away from the authority of Baghdad
how very, very important it will be that people are well treated
very quickly and there is order so that other parts of the country
are more likely to fall away quickly to minimise military conflict.
There is an enormous military imperative as well as a humanitarian
imperative to make arrangements to look after people very well
in areas that might fall away from the control of Baghdad. That
is very clear to everyone, but it has to be done in practice.
Mr Battle
24. Can I be clear, in the event of a conflict
who will be in charge of, who will run the Oil-for-Food Programme?
In some conversations it has simply been said that the military
will control the oil fields so they will run the Oil-for-Food
Programme. I cannot see UNHCR running oil fields. What scenarios
does the Government have in those circumstances?
(Clare Short) Oil-for-Food is a UN authorised programme.
I have seen suggestions that there be a need to give authority
to the Secretary General of the UN to make flexible decisions.
That is a question to be considered, it has not been decided.
Say the oil fields were all set on fire, so there is no income
coming in from oil, which is a possible scenario because it did
happen to a degree before, then food would have to be got from
elsewhere, it would not be Oil-for-Food anymore, you might want
to use the distribution networks, it would cease to be Oil-for-Food
and it would have to be big, urgent, large scale humanitarian
supplies being distributed.
(Mr Fernie) The key point is that at the moment the
Oil-for-Food Programme mechanisms which dictate its financing
and delivery are controlled by the UN and are directed by UN Security
Council resolutions. Within Baghdad-controlled Iraq at the moment
there is no doubt that Saddam has a large degree of influence
over how that system is administered. If we get to a situation
where for whatever reason oil production and the oil revenues
which flow from the oil production, which are currently financing
not only the food but the other things which are distributed then
the United Nations Security Council, we would need to think quite
carefully and quite quickly about what decisions it would need
to take to allow different mechanisms to be put in place. As we
have already said, informal discussions are already going on in
New York and thinking about what the options are.
Tony Worthington
25. I read a lot in the American press about
what the plans are for after the war, about governor generals
or military control alongside civilian control, I have read nothing
over here. Say the war goes very, very well from the American's
viewpoint, at what point do humanitarian concerns become paramount?
(Clare Short) I have tried to say humanitarian concerns
have to be paramount before any military action, how it is authorised
and organised and what kind of military action and what kind of
securing of order and proper treatment of people is absolutely
crucial to minimising the risks of humanitarian disasters of hunger,
the displacement of people and ethnic fighting, and so on, it
is key that it is not just afterwards. We are back to the question
of the second Security Council resolution, if there is to be second
Security Council resolution it would have to make arrangements
for authority.
26. Absolutely.
(Clare Short) If there were not presumably whoever
took the military action, power would be authority and that would
be more complicated for the UN.
Tony Worthington: This seems to me to
be absolutely crucial that all of the talk of it is being under
UN control but then there seems to be a point where you hand it
over to the Americans to run the war, but I would want to believe
that the UN was in control all of the way through.
Chairman: That is fine as a statement.
Ann Clwyd
27. In the event of chemical and biological
weapons being used will the aid agencies be able to operate? Is
any protective clothing being offered to the aid agencies? Is
there any training going on of Iraqi health workers who also may
be called to deal with the population in the event of such weapons
being used?
(Clare Short) The first thing to say is there is the
UN there, and very few NGOs, in Baghdad- controlled Iraq. The
UN has a duty of care to its own staff, I think I have said this
already, it is important in thinking about what is to be done,
if chemical and biological weapons were used I think the UN remit
would be to withdraw their staff, that would leave Iraqi staff,
and there is Iraqi staff working for the UN system, and the military.
Obviously this is probably the worse possible scenario and everything
needs to be done to avoid this coming about. The military would
have to be in the lead in trying to bring relief to Iraqi people,
both Iraqis who are working in the UN systems Oil-for-Food or
in the health care systems that there are and to anyone who might
have been injured or hurt in the use of such weapons. Clearly
the overwhelming object is to ensure that that does not come about.
28. Can I ask you about the Kurds, the Kurds
have been on the frontline in several conflicts in the past against
the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. I do not think they have been offered
any protective clothing either, although if there is a war they
will be involved in that war alongside the United States and the
United Kingdom. Is any account being taken of the very vulnerable
situation that they will be in all over again?
(Clare Short) Again I am not party to all of the military
planning and we would not be able to disclose that either, and
there are plans about north, south, east and west of the country.
I am not aware of any preparations to provide any clothes to civilians
or maybe fighters, I do not know if that was the implication of
your question. I am sure these questions have occurred to people.
Chairman: Secretary of State, we will
have to conclude it there—we are expecting two divisions—we
have covered the areas that you wanted to cover. Thank you to
you and your officials for helping us. We will adjourn until 4.30
and then we will take evidence from the NGOs at 4.30. Thank you,
Secretary of State.
(The Committee suspended for a division in the House from
4.00 pm until 4.30 pm)
|
