| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as everyone knows, innocents on both sides have suffered from terrorism, increasingly so since more violent leadership has taken hold on each side. Has that not arisen because of the failure to implement resolutions of the United Nations Security Council? Should not most of the blame for that failure rest at the door, I regret to say, of our allies in the United States of America? That being so, has the Prime Minister obtained from President Bush undertakings that, in the future, United Nations resolutions concerning Israel will be backed by the United States?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that I myself would say that "most of the blame" should lie at the door of the United States. I do not think that that is a fair historical summary. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said plainly that there is blame on both sides. I doubt that any
President of the United States would say that the US would always support future UN Security Council resolutions without studying the texts. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—which echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—that the United States is a very significant participant in these matters. The more closely it is involved with the European Union, and with the assistance of our Government, the better it will be. I also agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that innocents are dying on both sides. I do not think that death chooses with any scruple.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, it was good to hear from the noble and learned Lord about the proposal for international monitors. However, the presence of international monitors assumes an agreement to be monitored. I wonder whether the Minister could go beyond that and ask whether there could be any role for an international force in order to help diplomats trying to broker an agreement. One of the most distressing and depressing features of the present situation is that policy on both sides is driven by a sense of desperation and despair. That will not lead anywhere. There must be some hope and I think that there can be hope only through decisive intervention from outside. I wonder whether there might come a time when there could be a role for a much stronger international force.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall deal with the points made by the right reverend Prelate in order. At the moment we are looking to civilian monitoring. Of course he is quite right to say that, unless we have Israeli and Palestinian agreement, a course of monitoring simply cannot work.
On the question of the imposition of yet further armed forces into the Middle East, I shall certainly take that on board with care and transmit it to my colleagues, although I do not really need to do so because my noble friend Lady Symons is seated next to me. At this stage I think that we ought to concentrate on seeing whether we can arrange a monitoring force which will depend on the consent of those who are to be monitored and some agreement about the cessation of violence. Otherwise there will be nothing to monitor.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, while I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about the absolute necessity to be even-handed, is there not a slight danger that what the Government have said about settlement does not go far enough? Surely it is not simply a question of no further settlement? It is a source of real aggravation that there are now 500,000 to 600,000 illegal settlers both on the West Bank and in Gaza? This has been encouraged by the Sharon government and it has been a source of enormous provocation. It ought to be policy to encourage not only no further settlement, but the dismantling of some existing settlements.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may have in mind the recommendation of
the Mitchell committee; namely, that at this stage Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including the further growth of existing settlements. However, to go back to his point of fundamental principle, if the settlements are unlawful—illegal under international law—then it is plain that they ought not to be allowed to continue and undoubtedly they are an obstacle to peace. I imagine that any Prime Minister of Israel, over whichever coalition he might preside, would find that there will be very significant internal domestic difficulties, but I do not dissent from the general thrust of the noble Lord's remarks. The difficulty here is that events are changing very quickly. It would be legitimate for the noble Lord to say that I am being weasel worded, but I am trying be as cautious as I can in order not to exacerbate the extremely critical situation that exists at the moment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is unacceptable that one party should look at the other's proposals and then walk away immediately? That is precisely what Chairman Arafat did about two years ago. Does my noble and learned friend further agree that Chairman Arafat has to exhibit more than mere condemnation of what has occurred in Israel and must take active steps to ensure that no other provocation exists? In that way, discussions could take place—but not until such steps are taken.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no point in having discussions to which parties do not go in good faith and with the intention of at least making an effort to reach common ground. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked about Mr Arafat's power to impose discipline on those within his territory. If he does not have the infrastructure, the police and security forces to do so—and if tanks are destroying dwellings at the moment—it is very difficult. What I am saying may not be popular with everyone, but the fact that it is unpopular does not make it untrue.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is not Israel in breach of international law in another important respect—that is, its army's attacks on civilian members of independent non-governmental organisations such as the Red Cross, Médicines sans Frontières and others impartially involved in the conflict, who are unable even to drag the wounded away? Will there be a Statement by Her Majesty's Government on this issue? Does anyone listen to Statements by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, people do listen. The reason for the debate is that people realise that the United Kingdom Government have a genuine interest in bringing about peace in this part of the world. The voice of the United Kingdom—I do not limit it to the Government—still has a good deal of power, respect and regard in the Middle East. Obviously if activities of the kind specified by the noble Earl are being carried out—I say "if"—they are plainly unlawful under international law.
Iraq
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby rose to call attention to the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and to the case for resuming United Nations inspections there; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are now moving on from the Statement to a debate about Iraq. Having very much welcomed the Prime Minister's Statement on the crisis in the Middle East, the question of an approach towards Iraq to deal with the problems thrown up by that country raises huge and uncertain issues which need to be discussed in Parliament. We on these Benches have therefore decided to give up a part of our normal debate time in order to discuss this issue. We believe that it is crucially important that Parliament should debate the matter because there are so many profound uncertainties and because the consequences of getting decisions wrong will be extraordinarily grave for the whole world, not least for the area that we have just been discussing. Indeed, given the chaos in the Middle East at the present time, to extend the existing military actions to include Iraq could well plunge the whole of the region into a serious and major international war, with the most profound repercussions on any prospects for peace and the effective maintenance of the coalition against terrorism, of which we are a part.
Nothing I propose to say should in any way cast doubt on the terrible record of Saddam Hussein. We all recognise that what he has done to his own people, quite apart from people in other parts of the world, cannot be defended by any conscientious man or woman. That is not what is at stake at present. What is at stake is how we deal with the challenge posed by Iraq in a way that most limits the repercussions on other parts of the world—not least the Middle East—and that effectively deals with the concerns that have been rightly raised at the UN and elsewhere.
I do not want to take up more of the time of the House than I should. I shall therefore set out five issues and say a little about each. The first issue is whether the Iraqi problem throws up an acute crisis at the present time. I can say straightaway that the present crisis in regard to Iraq leads on to issues relating to the relationship between the moderate Arab governments and the governments of the western world. It is disturbing that over the past month one moderate Arab government after another has given warnings about the possible consequences of a military attack on Iraq.
It is of great significance that several of those Arab governments and one that is not an Arab government but a crucial ally in NATO—Turkey—have linked that directly to what is currently happening on the West Bank, as they see it, to the Palestinians. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Turkey used extreme language when he spoke about genocide. I do not believe that kind of language to be justified, but it shows how far even relatively moderate governments have been pushed by the events that have unrolled in the past few days.
My first question concerns whether this is a crisis to which Parliament should devote its time. I believe that it is. The evidence of rising public opinion in one key allied Arab state after another means that we need to think very carefully about the way in which the whole issue should be handled. In the past couple of days there have been riots in the area of the Gulf states of a kind that have not been seen for many years. There have been statements by Mr Mubarak, the President of Egypt, and by the Crown Prince of Jordan which show how troubled they are by public opinion, which increasingly asserts itself loudly in favour of a solidarity with the Palestinians and, beyond that, even with Iraq. So this is an issue which profoundly justifies debate.
Secondly, what evidence is there that Iraq is consistently linked to terrorist causes? The Leader of the House said that there was evidence that Iraq was linked to terrorist movements concerning the Middle East, but he did not list what they were. I, for one, have looked extremely carefully at all the information available to us through the Internet and other bodies to which we belong—in my case, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in Harvard and the International Crisis Group, of which I am a member of the board that met at the weekend—but I cannot find any decisive evidence to link Iraq to the Al'Qaeda network. I believe that Iraq is far too cautious to allow itself to be caught in that way. That is not to say that it may not be linked to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist movements in the Middle East.
Anyone who looks into the huge amount of information available at the present time will find that it is consistently contradictory and that one person's word or piece of evidence is denied by another. One of the most difficult things to do in regard to this issue is to find out what is going on. Members of this House will recall, for example, that an announcement of the discovery of an advanced biological laboratory in Afghanistan, providing biological weapons, was gainsaid only a few days later by no less than the American intelligence services, who said that they had not found such evidence. So, even among our own intelligence sources, there appears to be considerable conflict as to what can be relied on and what cannot. In that situation, the test of deliberation is extremely significant and important.
In this context, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the excellent study—one of the most detailed and careful studies undertaken—on behalf of the conference of the Bishops of the Church of England. Even that study, which is expressed in the most moderate terms, concludes that Iraq has actually obeyed to a great extent or to a considerable extent seven of the eight resolutions laid down in the cease-fire agreement that followed the Gulf War. Our distinguished Minister has pointed out that the Iraqis have flouted one UN resolution after another. She is correct. The Church of England report is correct too. It simply demonstrates again how extraordinarily difficult it is to find out what is the actual, solid fact in this extraordinary miasma of information.
Thirdly, what is happening presently in terms of the build-up of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Again, if we go back to the 1999 report of the inspectors of the United Nations Secretary-General at the point at which the UNSCOM inspection effort was wound up, we find that UNSCOM claimed that it had largely stopped the Iraqi nuclear programme, that in its view it had gone a long way to damage the chemical programme, but that it could not report similar success with regard to biological weapons.
No one doubts that the retention of weapons of mass destruction by a country as evil in its intent as Iraq—at least, under the present administration—presents to the world a major threat. But, fourthly, how is it to be dealt with? Here, we enter areas of profound uncertainty. The first concerns international law. As Jessica Matthews, the chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has pointed out in a powerful article, there is no concept of "regime change" in international law. Indeed, if we think about it, there could not be—because every country can imagine several regimes that it would like to see changed. An example in our case is that of Zimbabwe. It is simply an open door through which all kinds of grievances can go.
However, there is certainly international law in terms of the demands on Iraq to accept, without condition, the return of the inspectors. That is solidly based on United Nations resolutions. It would be right and proper—I hope that the Minister can assure us of this—that the very first step must be to see that every possible pressure is brought to bear on Iraq, not least by her Arab neighbours, to accept the return of the inspectors without condition. Incidentally, that means inspectors much more sophisticated in their techniques and much more independent in their contracts than was the case with the previous inspection regime. UNMOVIC is by any standards an impressive operation, and Mr Blix, who is in charge of it, believes that it could do a very effective job. So, yes, there must be inspection if we can possibly get it. If we cannot, there must be an approach based on international law, which is at the heart of a counter-terrorist attack. That must mean a United Nations resolution.
I have two final questions. First, do we have a thought-through strategy as regards what might be done, assuming that it could be brought within the law, to topple the present Iraqi regime? I must confess that I am extremely frightened about the plan that I have heard advanced in American quarters, or at least in some American quarters, for using the Shiah in the south and the Kurds in the north as a kind of pincer operation on Iraq. The potential for breaking Iraq open on ethnic lines is put at the highest level by such an approach. Frankly, to take only one example, it is quite hard to believe that Turkey would welcome an approach that broke open Iraq and produced out of it a huge demand for an independent Kurdistan, which would almost inevitably flow from such an effect. The Iraqi opposition forces carry nothing like the conviction that was carried by the opposition forces, for example, in Kosovo or, before that, in Bosnia.
Lastly, I am troubled by the increasing neglect of the second element of the Government's strategy. I do not particularly blame the Government for that, because it is an alliance strategy. The strategy against terrorism was always a combination of two parts: military attacks and an effective peace-building process. Over the weekend, at the International Crisis Group, we heard a number of reports from Afghanistan which showed all too clearly that order outside Kabul had not been established; that parts of Afghanistan were reverting to the warlords and that there was feuding between them; that, increasingly, crime and disorder are to be found in that country; and ISAF, the British-led security force, has great problems due to lack of resources and lack of manpower.
An effective strategy must be based on an ability to reconstruct and build the peace in the nations that we have rescued, we may feel, from terrorism; otherwise, terrorism will simply breed again in the shards of destruction that have been left behind. Those with a classical education will recall the famous phrase:
- "They made a desolation, and they called it peace".
4.37 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has shown political skill, as well as some good fortune, in bringing us back to real politics after yesterday's superbly managed ritual, by considering one of the most central and dangerous problems in the world. The Motion has particular relevance in view of the Statement that we have just heard. The fact that the Statement was brought forward so that we could hear it before this debate indicates how the problem of Iraq is tied up with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Although most people would agree that the return of UNSCOM—now UNMOVIC—to Iraq would be a desirable goal, current US suggestions that any weapons inspection team in Iraq should be allowed to go where it wants, when it wants, and without prior notification, is mistaken. Not surprisingly, so far, this approach has met with flat rejection by the Iraqis, even under the not-so-veiled threat of war as the alternative. Such a rejection may be exactly what the hawks in the United States administration want, since it would then be easier for them to justify a military means of achieving a "regime change", to coin a phrase, as discussed by the noble Baroness.
Unfortunately, the view that Iraq's cruelly harsh regime can be changed through military means is held by a sizeable proportion of public opinion, particularly in the United States. But I suggest that to make flat demands for no-holds-barred inspections is a dangerously simplistic approach. The return of UNMOVIC is much more likely to be achieved through a more sophisticated approach to Iraq, offering carrots as well as sticks. For that, intensive
negotiations would be needed, but with good will they might well be productive. The forthcoming meeting—to be held next week, I gather—between Iraq's Foreign Minister and Kofi Annan might well be crucial in setting such negotiations in motion. I hope that the Government will give all the support that they can to facilitate that important meeting and not simply cheer at the sidelines.In considering the basis for such negotiations, it is worth looking at why Iraq forced UNSCOM to leave in 1998. The Iraqi position is clear: certain members of UNSCOM were giving classified and sensitive information directly to their governments rather than to the United Nations and some of that information was then being passed to Israel through Mossad and possibly the CIA. Scott Ritter, the American director of UNSCOM who resigned in 1998 and was replaced by the Australian Richard Butler, admitted that UNSCOM was being used for espionage purposes. He stated this at a meeting here in the Palace of Westminster and in his book Endgame, published in 1999. He also said that by 1998, 93 per cent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the facilities for manufacturing them had been destroyed, that the purpose of the sanctions regime had been largely achieved and that Iraq's capacity to replace them was crippled.
There is no definite evidence so far that weapons of mass destruction are now being made by Iraq. However, supposing such weapons of mass destruction are being stockpiled, it is worth asking against whom Baghdad would use them. To attack the USA or one of its allies, such as Kuwait or Israel, would be guaranteed beyond doubt to bring destruction on Baghdad.
A major problem, as perceived by Iraq and many other Arab states, remains the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, as well as its powerful army and its continued occupation of Palestinian territories—not just the currently occupied cities and towns, but the whole of the West Bank and Gaza—in violation of Security Council Resolution 242. To insist on Iraq completely fulfilling all the Security Council resolutions that relate to it while Israel does not is surely hypocritical.
Unfortunately, there can be no hope of Israel giving up its nuclear advantage while it senses that it is surrounded by hostile Arab states. Even if it were not, it would probably not give the weapons up. That is why it is necessary to take a wider view of the problem of Iraq, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has done, and consider its solution as part of achieving a just settlement for the Palestinian people. Only when they and the Arab nations that support them feel that they have had a fair deal might it be possible for Iraq to agree to some step-by-step disarmament and a full inspection of its weapons—conventional weapons as well as those of mass destruction.
That would have to be part of a general agreement throughout the Middle East to restrict arms, preferably leading to a measure of disarmament. As was said several times during questions on the
Statement, that just settlement for the Palestinians could be based on the terms of the recent Saudi proposal, which includes the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and Gaza and fair compensation for the families of Palestinian refugees who had to leave what is now Israel proper 50 years ago.The alternative of a military attack on Iraq, which would be of doubtful legality without a fresh Security Council resolution, would have dire consequences for the Iraqi people, who have still not fully recovered from the effects of the destruction of the country's infrastructure caused by the Gulf War and the sanctions that followed. It would also break up the carefully constructed coalition against terror and cause lasting harm to Arab-Western relations, perhaps encouraging international terrorism rather than stopping it, as well as having a serious effect on our oil supplies.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for initiating this important debate at such a topical time. The Secretary of State for Defence said the other day that the Government were willing to use nuclear weapons in the right conditions against "the states of concern". That clearly included Iraq. He even appeared to imply that we might make a first strike. No United Kingdom Government to my knowledge have gone that far in the past. I am puzzled as to why he said it and I think that perhaps he was unwise. However, the Prime Minister has been wise to stand by the United States in his attitude towards Iraq.
President Bush seems to have reversed President Teddy Roosevelt's maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" with his new policy, "Speak loudly, but act with care". That has certainly been his approach in Afghanistan. When judging how we should act towards Iraq, I prefer to take the cautious view. We know that Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction. We cannot be sure whether he has them now, because the inspectors have not been there for four years, but we know from the reports of the inspectors before they were forced out in 1998 that he had biological and chemical weapons capabilities. That forcing out of the inspectors is an indication of his state of mind and his plans. We know that he used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, which he started, and he used them against his own people inside Iraq. We know that he has attacked Iran and Kuwait.
There is a difference of opinion between the British and American Governments about the links that Saddam Hussein may or may not have with Al'Qaeda. That question is immaterial to the immediate question of whether we should state our intentions with regard to Iraq in robust terms, as we have done.
Given Saddam Hussein's record, he is capable of aggression again, even alone. He is capable of aggression against us in the United Kingdom. The means of delivery will not for long be a problem, even
if there are now certain difficulties about delivering weapons of mass destruction. To rule out military action would be as foolish as President Clinton's decision to rule out ground action in Kosovo. Such statements take the pressure off the other side.Another consideration that adds to the force of a threat of military action is that the American administration—the world's leading democracy—is again willing to risk military casualties. The previous administration's refusal to tolerate any possibility of military casualties was a grave handicap.
I agree that the first step is for the United Nations to put into force smart sanctions and, if possible, to reinstate the inspectors. The question will come up again in the United Nations in June. I shall be grateful to hear from the Minister about the present situation and prospects. The prospects are likely to be more favourable now because, as I understand it, the Russians have changed their posture on the issue and are prepared to act as we are proposing.
One of the advantages of imposing smart sanctions is that we will be better able to make it clear to the world that the sufferings and privations of the Iraqi people are the fault not of a UN resolution, but of the actions of President Saddam Hussein—although he has managed to mislead the world about the cause.
If military action is to be taken, various tests will have to be applied. We must be sure that military action will be effective and that it will lead to the removal of President Saddam. It must result in a competent and moderate government in Iraq. We must also avoid splitting Iraq; the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the dangers of such a possibility. Most important, action must not be taken until there is a good prospect of gaining at least acquiescence to it from the Arab world. However, such a situation will not be achieved until the situation of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is transformed for the better. Unless that happens, there will be very severe damage indeed to the coalition against terror.
It is significant that Iraq has recently had diplomatic successes in Beirut, in the conference of the Arab nations, where it obtained a statement of support from, I believe, every other Arab country present. It has also achieved a reconciliation with Kuwait. It has achieved those successes because of the Arab world's disgust at the failure of the West, particularly the United States, to restrain Prime Minister Sharon or—until last week—to make a serious effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
I very much welcome last week's dramatic and very important change of policy by the United States. Although the change is belated, it could be of fundamental importance. However, I have a couple of questions on the United States' policy. Is this reversal a tactical move to reduce Arab opposition to firm action against Iraq, or is it the first step in a long-term plan to produce a lasting solution to the Middle East problem? I hope very much that it is the latter. The Americans have said encouraging words in that context, but, as we know, it is very easy for the situation to change. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.
In other words, is the policy change a sideshow or the start of a whole new strategy by which the United States will do what is necessary for peace in the long run, even if that means defying the Israel lobby? United States aid to Israel, the majority of which is military, stands at about 3 billion dollars annually. As has been said, that provides the United States with a strong lever, if it has the will, to influence Israel in the direction of peace.
Finally, should not the main focus for western foreign policy, including United States foreign policy, no longer be Russia? Russia is no longer a military threat to us—it is almost a partner of the West. Russia cannot be a military threat; its GDP amounts to only 2 per cent of that of the United States. Instead, should not the focus of attention in foreign policy be the Middle East and southern Asia? In present circumstances, those regions seem to hold more relevance to the future peace of the world.
4.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the opportunity to debate this important subject at such an opportune time. I wish to stick closely to the actual wording of the Motion, which I wholeheartedly support.
Despite repeated attempts by the Iraqi Government to undermine UNSCOM's activities, by 1998 some progress had been made towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Most progress was made in the nuclear realm. Iraq's uranium enrichment and other nuclear production facilities were identified and destroyed early in the inspection programme. In 1997, UNSCOM reported that,
- "There are no indications of any weapons—usable nuclear materials— remaining in Iraq",
- "No evidence in Iraq of prohibited materials, equipment or activities".
Significant steps were also taken to eliminate Iraq's ballistic missile programme. By 1998, all but two of the 819 SCUD missiles known to have existed at the start of the Gulf War were accounted for, and no evidence was uncovered to suggest that Iraq was secretly manufacturing or testing indigenous ballistic missiles. Large volumes of Iraq's chemical weapons capability had also been destroyed by 1998. In 1998 a report by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed that UNSCOM had destroyed 38,000 chemical weapons and 480,000 litres of live chemical agents. Despite those results, however, important elements of Iraq's chemical programme remained unaccounted for. According to a statement in March 2002 by the British Foreign Secretary,
- "The weapons inspectors were unable to account for 4,000 tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of weapons, 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of nerve gas and 31,000 chemical weapons munitions".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/03/02; col. 744.]
Much less progress was made in destroying Iraq's biological weapons capacity. A panel of international experts reported in 1998 that Iraq's disclosures on biological weapons were,
- "Incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed".
The record is therefore a mixed one. Within the two categories of Resolution 687 relating to weapons dismantlement, three of the four objectives have been partially met. The most dangerous programmes—nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles—were effectively contained. Indeed, in recognition of this progress, a number of member countries on the UN Security Council have urged a formal certification of Iraqi compliance and a closing of the nuclear, ballistic missile and chemical inspection files.
More recently, however, the United States Government have been arguing that, since December 1998, Iraq has steadily rebuilt its WMD programme, and that it now poses a threat to regional and international security. This policy has been fuelled by reports provided by two Iraqi defectors to the USA suggesting that President Saddam Hussein has a,
- "Network of bunkers where chemical and biological weapons have been made and where attempts are underway to create a nuclear bomb".
The argument that Iraq has acquired substantial weapons of mass destruction is difficult to reconcile with previous UN reports that showed that, up to December 1998, Iraq's WMD programme had been effectively neutralised. Indeed, in November 2000, Peter Hain, the Minister of State with responsibility for Iraq, wrote:
- "Sanctions have not been counterproductive to the disarmament objective. On the contrary, sanctions have kept a brutal dictator contained for ten years and blocked his access to equipment and parts to rebuild his WMD arsenal".
I have deliberately not talked about the possibility of using military force to ensure compliance with Resolution 687. Not only is it premature for that, but, if the possibility did come to be seriously discussed, a whole range of other considerations would have to be taken into account. However, one thing which it is important to get crystal clear at this stage is the distinction between Saddam Hussein's WMD programme and the awfulness of his regime. His regime is indeed awful, but that in itself cannot be used as justification for launching an attack on Iraq. Nor should the desire to change the regime there lead to an exaggeration of the extent to which Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, the capability to
deliver them and the will to do so. Those matters need to be considered in their own light carefully and objectively. A number of countries have weapons of mass destruction and the capability of delivering them, but we do not threaten military action against them simply on that basis.We need to weigh carefully the evidence about what Saddam Hussein does and does not have in the way of weapons of mass destruction. We need to press hard for a resumption of inspections. We also need to make it worthwhile for Saddam Hussein to comply with the new inspection regime. Like most rulers, he is driven by considerations of self-interest and survival. There is still scope in the sanctions regime for offering a combination of stick and carrot which will on the one hand deny him access to material he needs for his weapons programme and on the other hand enable much-needed goods to enter Iraq, which will increase his prestige within the country.
Finally, I wish to put before the House a proposal which I owe entirely to Sir Michael Quinlan and Lewis Dunn. They suggest that at the moment widespread international agreement is needed, leading to a new United Nations Security Council resolution which would invite nations to make a commitment,
- "a. to treat any use of weapons prohibited by the 1972 Convention as a crime against humanity, not to be excused or palliated by any claim of justifying considerations;
- b. to regard any regime guilty of the crime, or of sheltering or supporting perpetrators, as having forfeited legitimacy;
- c. to pursue individually as criminals, by international process, any such regime's leaders and any others participating in the crime; and
- d. to reverse any advantage secured by its commission, and to succour its victims . . .
- Action on these lines could not ensure that the biological weapons threat vanishes—there can never be an absolute guarantee of that. But it would both heighten and broaden the deterrent barrier (and reduce the attraction of biological weapons acquisition)".
I have no illusions about the terrible nature of those weapons, nor about the ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, we need to be clinically objective about the existence of such weapons and the likelihood of his using them. We need to continue using pressure to get at the truth of the matter. Those steps need to be kept separate from any thoughts we might have about the desirability of changing the regime in Iraq, especially through military action.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I also welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in moving this debate on a crucial issue likely to have far-reaching implications for the security of the Middle East and indeed for all of us. I listened with interest to the Prime Minister's Statement as repeated in the House and I am grateful for its clarification of the question we are debating.
I note that the first and immediate priority for the Americans and for the British Government is to proceed through the United Nations in order to resume weapons inspections in Iraq. I have no doubt
that that is the right way to proceed. But if the Americans are still determined in due course—as their public statements seem to indicate—to remove Saddam Hussein by force, I have the gravest reservations about whether that is wise or likely to be effective. I am disturbed to note that President Bush was quoted as saying on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Texas, that,
- "even Iraqi compliance with UN demands on weapons inspections might not be enough to avoid war"—
I have noted the Prime Minister's assurance that no decisions have yet been taken on military action against Iraq. But I question whether, in present circumstances in Israel and the occupied territories, it is wise even to discuss military action against Baghdad. I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; I am in no doubt whatever about Saddam Hussein's terrible record as the dominator of Iraq for a long time.
There has been much talk of the need for President Bush to,
- "complete his father's unfinished business from the Gulf War".
The successful removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991 depended heavily—and rightly—on the cohesion of the international coalition, and on intensive diplomatic activity to ensure its continuing support for a series of Security Council resolutions. Had there been any serious attempt to follow through that successful campaign by attempting to unseat Saddam Hussein, the coalition would immediately have collapsed, just as the coalition against terrorism is now in danger of being lost through the failure of United States diplomacy over Palestine.
There are several reasons why we should not even be contemplating an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein by force. First, there must be strong doubts whether any such attempt by the United States, with or without our support, can be effective. If Saddam Hussein's humiliation from Iraq's ejection from Kuwait and the rain of cruise missiles on Baghdad were not enough to unseat him, why should military action or the threat of military action now succeed?
Secondly, talk of military action against Iraq at a time when the Arab-Israel situation is at its most dangerous, seems to me—I measure my words carefully—almost obscenely irrelevant. There have even been fanciful suggestions in the press that the removal of Saddam Hussein might facilitate a solution of the Arab-Israel problem. I am glad to note that a great deal of attention was given in the Prime Minister's meetings with President Bush to the current crisis in the Middle East. But if the Americans are
unable—as has been evident in the past week—to restrain what they call their "closest ally" in the Middle East from the appalling round of intimidation, massacre and humiliation of the Palestinian people, and the inevitable retaliation by Palestinian suicide bombers, how can they be expected to have any support in the region for military action against Iraq?Have they forgotten that it was Ariel Sharon, in a grotesque and cynical electoral gimmick, who provoked the latest intifada which has devastated both Israel and the occupied territories and has led to the tragic deaths of nearly 1,500 Palestinians and more than 400 Israelis, over the past 18 months?
Some noble Lords are old enough to remember—I was in the Middle East at the time—the appalling savagery which followed the fall of the Iraqi monarchy in 1958, when the corpses of the late King Faisal and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said were dragged through the streets of Baghdad. That is surely another reason for hesitation before attempting to provoke a change of regime.
This is not Afghanistan, where at least there were rival forces ready to help in supplanting the Taliban. And the United States still had sizeable international understanding—even in the Arab world—for its motives in removing the Taliban by force. There would be no support or understanding, either from the Arab world or from our European partners and allies, if the Americans were now to try to supplant Saddam Hussein by military force.
Furthermore, who would replace Saddam Hussein if, contrary to all expectations, the Americans succeeded in removing him? Either another member of the infamous Takriti family would take over or there would be a bloody revolution with a Shia fundamentalist government trying to take over from the present Sunni minority Government, with all the security implications that would pose for the region, particularly for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. If that were to lead to the break-up of Iraq, it could have serious and worrying implications for all Iraq's neighbours, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said.
Finally, and, in my view, crucially, I do not believe that we should any longer be in the business of changing or choosing other people's governments, even if we were able to justify this under international law. In the context of Israeli attempts to exile President Arafat, I note that the Foreign Secretary has said:
- "None of us can choose who leads Governments or Administrations in foreign countries. We have to deal with the people who are there".
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene after some extremely well-thought-out and constructive speeches. I believe that a little humility is required from the British Government over the question of the Middle East. Let us remember that the decisions taken in the 1920s and thereabouts led to
chaos—the conflict between the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the promises made to Emir Faisal and those made to the Saudi family. All four of those policies were mutually exclusive and we are now suffering from their consequences.As was recently said, foreign policy changed in 1989. Up until that time and the fall of the Berlin Wall, foreign policy was relatively simple: you had one enemy on one side, with the good guys on the other side. Now we are back into three-dimensional chess with foreign policy where it is miles too complicated to be simplistic. I see from my notes that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, made that point. I listened with attention to his remarks. We should also remember that we rather appreciated the Iraqi attack on Iran because we thought, "Let both of them keep fighting each other; we can keep well away, and two nasty guys will cut each other's throats". That was a fairly unattractive but, I suppose, completely realistic piece of cynicism.
I should like to underline a point that has already been mentioned; namely, the difference between capability and intent. France has nuclear weapons, but we do not threaten to re-occupy Calais, to retake Guyenne, or, indeed, to ask my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury to command British feudal levies in Gascony. We accept that the French capability is no threat. China has a nuclear capability. I read in newspaper reports today that the Japanese are becoming considerably worried about the situation. One Japanese political party is advocating that Japan should go nuclear. However, they are not advocating the use of nuclear weapons against China; they are just getting frightened. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, but we do not propose to resurrect Clive and Hastings. We have to live with the situation.
Israel also has weapons of mass destruction and is using force against her neighbours, not only on the West Bank but also, under that friendly and gentle gentleman Mr Sharon, against the Lebanese and those in the refugee camps. We do not say that we are going to use force against Israel, because the last time that we tried to do so it ended in tears.
We must ask ourselves what capability Saddam Hussein has. Before any use of force is considered, the evidence in that respect must be overwhelming. There are reports that he has built nuclear factories under schools and hospitals and that he has chemical weapons facilities in similar places. If any air action is taken against the country, this means that he will be able to show the dead bodies of patients and children, as well as those of orphans and widows. However, that may just be the intelligent placing of information that the gullible among us are supposed to take into account.
Before the Government take any action, the evidence of capability must be absolutely overwhelming. However, I suggest that capability alone is not a good enough excuse for using military force. We must prove beyond peradventure that the force will be used and that it will be used against American and British interests. Providing that that can be proved beyond let or hindrance, it must be possible
to consider military force. But what happens—I return to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright—if the regime in Baghdad collapses? Will it split into the old Turkish alliance of Basra, Baghdad and Moselle, with the Kurds splitting off in the north and destabilising the Kurdish part of Turkey? Will the Shia Muslims join the Persians on the eastern side of Mesopotamia, leaving a rump Shia-state-run Baghdad? If that happens, the boundaries of all the Arab states are up for grabs, with all the instability that that will bring forward.Alternatively—and, again, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wright—the possibility of a fundamentalist regime in Iraq is very unpleasant to contemplate. We should remember that the Ba'ath regime is intellectually a successor to the corporatist/fascist regimes of Europe. The Muslim world faces a terrible difficulty, and has done so since Napoleon landed in Egypt; namely, that of coming to terms with the modern world and finding a satisfactory method of governing itself. I am in danger of boring your Lordships to tears, but that is so because people in the Muslim world have no concept of:
- "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".
Therefore, I say this to the Government. We should proceed if, and only if, it can be proved beyond peradventure to everyone that there is a very genuine and real capability and that that capability will be used—not may be used, or kept aside. As a little historical meander, we should remember that Frederick the Great's father created the greatest army in Germany and never used it, but Frederick the Great did. Frederick the Great's father was no threat, but Frederick the Great was. As in all good military intelligence, there must be a combination of capability and intent.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, like many in this House, I find deeply worrying the idea of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of President Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The purpose of the debate is to look at ways of limiting his ability to develop those weapons further. We should not forget that the one effective means of retarding the ability of Saddam Hussein to develop those weapons was through the work of UNSCOM, as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
My knowledge of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons was gained through my training as an NBC officer in the Territorial Army. One of the fear factors involved in that was the fact that people were not trained how to survive a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. We dressed up in protective suits and followed all the drills not in order to prepare ourselves to survive such an attack but to fight invaders for a longer period of time. It is difficult to survive such an attack.
Why is Saddam Hussein developing these weapons? The area in which he has major difficulty is not only in the development of the weapons but in the fourth part of the equation; that is, the delivery system. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, one of the reasons he is developing these weapons is to threaten his own population. The weapons are used to repress them and to arouse fear and also to threaten Israel. However, these are weapons of last resort. I echo the view expressed by many noble Lords that in limiting any room for manoeuvre of the present regime by talking about a regime change, we are threatening the life of Saddam Hussein. To him, that is conceivably a ground for the use of weapons of last resort.
Military action is seen as a way of reintroducing controls on the development of these weapons. However, military action has far-reaching implications. As many noble Lords have pointed out, one of the major implications could be the implosion of Iraq. We have only to look at the recent situation when Zaire collapsed to appreciate how dangerous it can be when a diverse nation implodes and draws in many other neighbours to fight in the ensuing conflict. There would also be a regional effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, there would be major implications for Turkey, with the possibility of the formation of a Kurdistan which might well destabilise the region.
I do not believe that many Arab states agree that an attack on Iraq is a logical conclusion of the war on terrorism. I believe that many of their attitudes have hardened due to the situation in the West Bank. They would view an attack on Iraq more as an attack on an Islamic nation. A military assault would have massive humanitarian consequences for the people of Iraq. Women and children who survive at present on the oil-for-food programme would be severely affected by disruption in the movement of food across Iraq. Iraq does not have the agricultural capability to support its own population.
Pointing out those implications of military action does not imply that we support the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, pointed out, who would replace Saddam Hussein? The end of his regime would lead to bloody consequences. There would be a great deal of blood letting and score settling. It is unlikely that a stable democratic regime would replace the present regime.
We would support any means to stop the development of weapons of mass destruction. However, I believe the purpose of this timely debate is not to suggest solutions, which is perhaps beyond the remit of Members of this House, but to highlight the real risks involved in the action which we could undertake.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is always better to discuss such matters as peace or war early on in a calm atmosphere when the Government
have made no commitment, rather than wait until British forces are about to be deployed when you feel that you must give them full support and encouragement for whatever hazards may lie ahead.At the moment I doubt whether there are many in your Lordships' House who do not feel concern over what may happen in or over Iraq. As one who is still supporting our commitment to Afghanistan, where we are reinforcing comparative success and have a clear strategy and end plan, I feel that a distinction should be drawn between that particular action against proven supporters of terrorism and taking on the so-called "axis of evil", which raises altogether different issues.
Unlike many in Whitehall, I was once upon a time swept up in the Suez crisis. Although it was over 45 years ago, I remember all the details of that extraordinary period as if it was yesterday. Although no doubt we shall be told, with mutterings about "11th September", "war against terrorism", "weapons of mass destruction", "evil people with evil intent", that the circumstances this time are different, there are some ominous similarities between the two scenarios.
Then there was no clearly defined political aim. Were we aiming just to topple a dictator, or temporarily to take over the whole country, remembering that the original plan was for a D-Day like operation against Alexandria and a march on Cairo? Or, as later emerged after collusion with Israel, were we merely intent on reoccupying the Canal zone? Certainly, a clear cut political aim and end plan are essential for any successful military operation. Then one of the incentives for repossession was that Egypt would be incapable of running the Canal on its own. That was clearly a flawed parameter and intelligence at the time proved faulty in other respects as well.
Above all, it was a British Prime Minister who convinced himself that the President of Egypt was "an incarnation of evil", a re-run of Hitler, who could not be and should not be appeased and, if not dealt with and removed, the world would be on a totally unacceptable and dangerous slippery slope. Looking back those 45 years, all that sounds rather absurd, but one has heard similar arguments being advanced at the moment and in the event taking action was more damaging to our interests than not doing so.
Now I, and I imagine others in your Lordships' House, have no brief whatever for Saddam Hussein. He has done some terrible things in his own country. He has illegally attacked Kuwait and Iran. He has defied UN resolutions—as, of course, manifestly have others—and he appears to be trying to get together weapons of terror and mass destruction as, sadly, others have done. Sadly, one of the many casualties of the outrageous attack of 11th September is that strategic thinking about balance of power and deterrent seems to have gone out of the window. In the past any such potential threat has been met by manning at instant readiness an overwhelming deterrent, nuclear or conventional, which would largely invalidate the threat by posing such dire
consequences if it was ever to be implemented. I can see no compelling reason why Saddam Hussein could not similarly be deterred.Moreover, it could be argued, and argued pretty cogently, that Iraq would be far more likely to use some of these weapons if overwhelmingly attacked and with nothing to lose than if it had been contained more sensibly and constructively by other means. In that respect I like the phrase attributed, whether correctly or not, to the Foreign Office of "aggressive containment". I do not know exactly what it means, and I doubt whether they do either, but it seems to put the emphasis in rather a better place.
So I hope that when trying to maintain our proper support for America, the Government will analyse and cross-check most carefully all the intelligence; try to get the United Nations observers back into Iraq and try to establish a dialogue with other Arab neighbours so that they too can put pressure on Iraq to allow that to happen and not to do anything which would bring further discredit to the area. As a loyal partner of America, I hope that the Government will make sure that our views are strongly represented rather than following in its wake whatever the circumstances. Forty-five years ago it was the Americans who perhaps not surprisingly pulled the rug from under us, as perhaps they ought to do to Israel now, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. How much better for us, however, to counsel them wisely, well in advance, so that no misunderstanding can occur later.
In your Lordships' House we are not naturally privy to the very latest intelligence or to future plans. However, one thing, which has been said over and over again, is certain; that is, that if a land invasion on any scale took place against Iraq, there would be no support—and possibly considerable hostility—from all Arab countries in the area. They have never been that keen on Iraq being broken up as a country; and certainly no such action could be countenanced unless and until there was far more positive and sustained American backing to bring about a peaceful and just solution to the Palestine problem.
These terrible suicide bombers have inflicted death and anguish on many innocent civilians, to whom our hearts go out—we should think about what it would be like if that happened in this country. Because those bombers are more specifically motivated and of a different ilk from those who carried out the 11th September outrage, the crisis in Palestine cannot be looked on simply as an integral part or an extension of the wider war against terrorism. The problem is in Palestine itself. If Israel is ever to win back the moral high ground and the respect of the world, she must withdraw from the West Bank.
When I gave the Balfour Memorial Lecture not long ago in Tel Aviv—my opposite number was Ehud Barak—I reminded the audience of Milton's famous line that peace has its victories no less renowned than war. In Israel's case, I genuinely believe, as do others who have much closer knowledge of the problem than I do, that peace would not only bring it much more credit but would be far more productive than its
present policy in terms of achieving its goal—our goal and everybody's goal—of a safer, securer and permanent Israel to which the entire world could give its good will and support, both military and moral.I certainly hope that in the months to come, statesmanship and clear-headedness will continue to prevail over any emotion and revenge. But when you get any whiff of that over-simplistic philosophy that we are the "goodies" and those out there are the "baddies", and that whatever the goodies do to the baddies must be right, that attitude has a habit of generating its own momentum. And, my Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we all know that in this modern world life is considerably more complicated than that.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, for more than a month, I have been deeply concerned about President Bush's statement that the next stage in the war against terrorism would be an attack on Iraq. I thought for some weeks that I was—Cassandra-like—a voice crying in the wilderness. The metaphors that spring to mind come appropriately from Greek tragedies and the Old Testament. But the chorus of disquiet about the dangers of sowing dragons' teeth is now widespread. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for this opportunity to express my concerns.
The reality of what is happening in Israel is already having the consequences that would arise from attacking Iraq. As has already been said, the moderate Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa are increasingly alienated. Sudan has already offered training camps for Palestinian terrorists and there have been attacks on synagogues in France. Those consequences would be exacerbated by military action against Iraq. Terrorism would become more, not less, widespread.
Terrorism is a response to grievance, where there are no alternative channels for protest. Of course Yasser Arafat's tragic endorsement of the young suicide bombers has been desperately provocative, but their resort to terrorism is fuelled by underlying and genuine grievances. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the illicit building of settlements should have been tackled by the international community, especially the United States, a long time ago.
President Bush is allegedly surprised by the antagonism of the surrounding Arab states to Israel's behaviour. I hope that he will now begin to understand the likely consequences of an attack on Iraq. The various military scenarios that have been promulgated include 10,000 civilian casualties and possibly the need for an invasion force of 250,000 military personnel, with many more dead on both sides. Iraq is not Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein has 350,000 troops and military conflict on that scale would effectively amount to a third world war as other states were drawn in.
Much as the governments of the moderate Arab states may dislike Iraq, many of their young people, in countries as widespread as Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia, see Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as heroes because they stand up to the might of the United States. The disaffected youth of many of those countries are posing an increasing problem because of the sheer numbers. Forty per cent of Morocco's population of 45 million are aged under 18. Of Saudi Arabia's population of 23 million, 43 per cent are under 15. There are in consequence increasing numbers of unemployed youths, to whom terrorism may seem like an attractive alternative career, which would be justified by an American attack on Iraq. Saudi Arabia has 100,000 young people coming into the job market each year, of whom only half find jobs.
Terrorism is a hydra-headed monster—the more heads that you chop off, the more will grow in their place. Terrorism is easily exported, as America knows to its cost. As the French learnt in Algeria and as we learnt in Northern Ireland, military measures may contain the problem in the short term but are no long-term solution.
A worrying aspect about both Ariel Sharon and George Bush is that their actions appear to be dictated by a sense of unfinished business. For the United States to be so indignant about a country's failure to comply with UN resolutions comes uncomfortably from a country that has not enforced UN resolutions on Israel, that has failed to pay its UN dues on occasion, that breaks international treaties on trade and arms without compunction and that declines to take part with the international community in combating global warming and the setting up of the international criminal court.
If the United States' argument that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is legitimated by self-defence, why not attack North Korea, which is an equally repressive regime and which has nuclear weapons and missiles that could reach the western seaboard of the United States?
I hope that when the Minister replies, she will confirm that no military attack is intended to change the regime in Iraq without an explicit resolution from the United Nations. Moreover, I do not accept that failure to conform to previous resolutions or the vague necessity of self-defence are sufficient justifications for launching what would effectively be a third world war.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. She referred to Cassandra; nobody would ever think of applying that term to the noble Baroness. I should apply a six-letter word to her: she has a good bit of wisdom.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for introducing this timely debate. Noble Lords may wonder why I am speaking in this debate. Just about 30 years ago, on "Derby Day" and in a House that perhaps was marginally less populated than it is this afternoon, I made my maiden speech on, of all things,
chemical warfare. I do not have one O-level in science and people asked why I chose that subject. I thought that it was of relative importance.I hope that I shall be forgiven for breaking several conventions and for referring to participants in today's debate, although some of them are not, for one reason or another, in their place. I appreciated what the right reverend Prelate said about the 1972 treaty. Things have moved on since I made my first contribution on this subject, let alone on a particular geographical area. The scene has developed. That is interwoven with the Statement that we heard earlier today. Unfortunately, we see that through electronic and printed media on a daily basis.
The political and military scene in the Middle East is complicated by the presence of President Saddam. I refer to the threat, and the perceived threat, that he presents overtly and covertly—a threat that ebbs and flows. He has his part to play, sometimes peripherally and sometimes as a main player, in the conflicts in the Middle East. In the past week or so I have read that it was perhaps unreal of us in the West to regard Israel as a western country. One diplomat—a wise man—in Israel, although he may have been somewhat politically incorrect, said, "We are a Middle Eastern nation. I hope that our friends and allies elsewhere in the world might think that we behave as another Middle Eastern nation, perhaps like Iraq".
We know—your Lordships have spelled it out very clearly—that Iraq has already used chemical weapons on its own people. It has used them on the Kurds, on the Iranians and, I believe, on the marsh dwellers of south Iraq. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Blaker referred to that far more clearly and succinctly than I could possibly do.
I was more than impressed by the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. He and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Blaker have spent their lives and pursued great careers in gaining friends and allies in the United Nations and elsewhere in the world for the cause that we and our American friends may be pursuing in various strands and various guises. They have also tried to ensure that resolutions in the United Nations and elsewhere are backed up with support, and practical support if needed.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who is temporarily away from his seat, remembers the events of 45 years ago, as perhaps does my noble friend Lord Onslow. He and I are near enough contemporaries. I remember—it was in my last year at school—the traumatic events of the Suez adventure at the end of October/beginning of November 1956. Indeed, even at the age of 17 I remember wondering whether those events were necessarily wise. Your Lordships and, indeed, the noble and gallant Lord, when he returns, may remember that the Suez adventure was tied up with another fascinating event of that time; namely, the Russian invasion of Hungary. Those two events caused much discussion in the United Nations and elsewhere. Did we perhaps take our eyes off the ball? Did the British and American governments take action because of those two intertwined and perceived events? I simply do not know.
It was most encouraging to hear from the noble and gallant Lord. I also look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Vivian has to say on what I call the "picture of practical action" which could be taken militarily. That has been spelled out very clearly by the noble and gallant Lord.
I have some tiny knowledge of weapons of mass destruction and experience of writing on such subjects as I served for four years as rapporteur of the Scientific Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly. Such weapons presented a continual threat and were a subject on which I was asked to provide a report. I stress to your Lordships that I have no qualifications in science. My knowledge is gained quite often from help in your Lordships' House, through the Library or from other material that I obtain here.
I have gained some knowledge of the two appalling substances which I seem to remember are called Tabun and sarin. They are now very much "O-level" products. I also had concerns about the pharmaceutical industry. I began to think that if a certain pharmaceutical were boosted 100 times or in various progressions, one could find some fairly ugly substances. I appreciated the comments of the right reverend Prelate on precursor chemicals. I believe that he spelled out the figures quite beautifully and far better than I could.
I conclude by hoping that all the words that we read from Texas and Washington, from our friends in the United States will perhaps be taken with a—to use these wicked three words—pinch of salt. I wonder whether all those remarks are made totally without support and without thought. I do not necessarily believe that they are.
However, I hope that at some stage the Government will make clear our intentions—I apologise for using that term; I am always waiting to hear whether the noble Baroness will say that things are "abundantly clear" or "relatively clear" and how many times she will use that term—not necessarily to me, but elsewhere to President Saddam if he chooses to use any weapons of mass destruction in a conflict with any of his neighbours or against anyone. I reiterate the comments of my noble friend Lord Blaker who said that we should state our intentions in robust terms. I cannot think of anyone who would do that better than the noble Baroness, and I hope that she will do so.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, there is no question that my noble friend has produced a Motion which has taken the serious attention of many Members. There have been some thought-provoking speeches and I enjoy following my noble neighbour. However, I considered in particular that the speeches of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, put the points properly and certainly far better than I could.
It is also fascinating and right and proper to see that the actions of Israel are now receiving the condemnation that they should have had many years ago. In the past, I have been a great supporter of Israel
in times of attack by the Arab nations. But the actions of that country since have turned me the other way, and I believe that that is the case for many people.One of the great hopes is that events are now forcing President Bush and the American people to realise that the largest part of their unpopularity throughout the world is certainly due to their unqualified support for Israel in some very improper actions and repressions in which Israel has engaged. Without any doubt, the United States and President Bush must see that a resolution of that problem is absolutely essential. All the speeches today have reinforced that point.
When it comes to the actual resolution, it is essential that a proper and powerful inspection team goes into Iraq. Her whole record, which everyone has mentioned, indicates that, given the chance, Iraq will do anything for greed. She initially attacked Iran because she believed that there was a splendid chance to grab the oil in the neighbourhood. The same was true when she conquered Kuwait and had to be ejected, and, as has been said, Saddam Hussein has attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There is no doubt that, given his record, unrestricted ability to develop other weapons would constitute a great danger to the area. Therefore, all possible pressures must be put on him to facilitate and encourage an inspection team of ability and size to stop his undoubted efforts to produce terrorist weapons.
I am afraid that argument and persuasion towards Iraq and Saddam Hussein need to be backed by something else. It must be said that the fear of a unilateral American attack on him is probably the strongest persuasion that he will have to do what is absolutely necessary for the peace of the area.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness has placed Iraq firmly in the wider context of the Middle East and others have supported that. I am grateful for that. Iraq has an ancient history in its own right, an ancient civilisation. Its people are proud of their past achievements, although not of their present tyrannical rulers. If Iraq is to return to the family of nations we must look beyond its appalling regime to the young people who will shape the future of that community.
Iraq is a potentially rich country. Its people are well educated and have been used to a relatively high standard of living. It is a sad commentary, not only on Saddam Hussein, who our Government keep insisting is solely responsible, but on the architects of 10 years of sanctions that so many people now live in poverty, deprived of proper healthcare and sanitation. As someone who has never had to work in government, I reject all official excuses, including the one that Saddam is entirely to blame, which we hear frequently, when there is so much more that the United Nations could do to improve its own sanctions.
Even before the latest threats of war, there was a strong case for targeting sanctions more effectively. Now that Iraq has been declared part of the "axis of
evil" and was again the ogre of the Texas summit, the necessity for proper safeguards for vulnerable groups is stronger than ever.I have worked with several NGOs which are active in Iraq today and have consulted them as experts on the condition of ordinary Iraqis. Those NGOs should not be in Iraq at all; there are so many other priorities in much poorer countries. Yet Iraq, despite the benefits of oil, remains low in the human rights index. For example, a household survey carried out by Save the Children Fund last year in northern Iraq showed that three in five families have to live on only 6 US dollars per week over and above the standard food ration, and one in five have only 3 US dollars per week on which to live; that is for a whole family. Figures for Baghdad and Basra are hard to come by but it is well known that poverty and malnutrition are much more severe in the centre and south of Iraq in the Shiite areas. Despite UN Security Council Resolution 986, which was supposed to relax sanctions, Iraq's mortality and morbidity rates are still among the worst in the world.
Since the Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions there has been a steady deterioration, not only in the standard of living of the poorest, but in the quality of healthcare, water, sanitation and other vital services. At the same time, sanctions and financial restrictions have stifled the economy and private enterprise so that there are few means for families to generate wealth for themselves. Salaries cannot be paid on time or in full, with resulting unemployment and family hardship adding to existing shortages.
Last week I spoke to a charity coping directly with shortages of equipment in Iraqi children's hospitals, which said that it can still take months to obtain spare parts and even as long as two years if any components are manufactured in the United States. Staff cannot even replace light bulbs or carry out routine repairs because of the accumulated effect of sanctions on hospital administration. On top of that is the recent sudden increase in cancer among children in the south, which is said to be linked to depleted uranium fragments from the Gulf War. It is hard to get medicines for that cancer because of their short shelf life. The director told me:
- "It is really heartbreaking to see birth defects arising from this condition and the sickness these children have to endure".
The extended oil-for-food programme has so far averted a humanitarian crisis, but it has not altered the parlous state of Iraqi institutions and services or the underlying economic crisis. Those in the West who have felt complacent about containing Saddam Hussein in the past 10 years have conveniently ignored the plight of the Iraqi people. They have decided to overlook the effects of this policy of containment on vulnerable groups and its failure to have a marked impact on the ruling elite. Even the so-called smart sanctions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, proposed under Security Council Resolution 1284, are evidently not yet designed to target the elite. Can the Minister explain how the goods review list will help the poorest among the Iraqi population, for example? Can she confirm that this Government will continue to
consult the NGOs, such as the Save the Children Fund, about the most effective forms of embargo and ways of designing sanctions to protect the poorest?The NGOs are becoming impatient with a UN system which cannot deliver either on material goods or on its own resolutions and promises of support. That problem is familiar to students of the West Bank and Gaza today and, indeed, of much of the Middle East. It cannot be blamed on the failure of the UN. It is clear that a few powerful countries, for their own political reasons, have the ability to control the express will of the entire family of nations.
The UK is one of those countries, although, as the noble and gallant Lord hinted, in the context of anti-terrorism it is a follower rather than a principal. What began as a legitimate campaign against terrorism could now become another dangerous western crusade, with all the racism which that implies. Despite our historic responsibilities, despite the efforts of individuals in our foreign service, this Government have been unable to show any independence of the United States or, indeed, to reflect any European or international view. Instead, we have been a willing accomplice of a deliberate strategy of cherry picking, divide and rule and outright aggression in the Middle East.
This week we remembered the Holocaust, the Dir Yassin massacre of Palestinians and the genocide in Rwanda—three occasions when the world was apparently powerless to act. The past few days, while we have been a nation in mourning, have also seen the most brutal onslaught so far on the West Bank, and we have done nothing about it. We have hardly made a Statement about it until today. Who would have thought a month ago that Palestinians could be so humiliated and terrorised as they have been in Jenin and Nablus; that the holiest shrine in Bethlehem could be under siege; and still the great powers seem unable to stop their friend, the tiny state of Israel? Which is the tin pot nation: the little bully that does the damage or the cowardly one which lets it happen? Where are the rules of engagement? We have gone way beyond the Good Samaritan when ambulances are being attacked, Red Cross and Red Crescent workers are denied access to the dead, and peace monitors become legitimate targets.
I am talking about something happening in Israel, our old military ally and trading partner. This is not defence against suicide attacks. Who can any longer dare to make that comparison? It is a brutal occupation, which the "civilised" world watches on television and allows to happen.
I hope that General Sharon tunes into the wisdom of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, tonight. How can the Arab world, let alone the Palestinian people, ever forget the unholy alliance which is conspiring ostensibly against terrorism but in fact against the survival and credibility of an oppressed people whose land and future we have guaranteed? What have we to say about American hypocrisy in the past few days? Colin Powell says that he does not even think he can get a ceasefire. How much time does Israel
need before it believes that the spirit of Palestinians is crushed and the prospect of a peaceful settlement is gone for ever?Leaving aside Iraq, which I know is the subject today, and which is making its own capital out of this, how can any government any longer justify standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States over a campaign against terror when we condone and tacitly support the same terror among our own allies, the people who we say uphold the same standards of democracy and decency?
5.59 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a powerful debate. It is entirely justified that we should spend time on our first day back talking about the importance of the dispute. I am therefore grateful that we have had such useful interventions from so many sides of the House.
As a Liberal Democrat it has puzzled me that for much of the debate there have been more noble Lords on our Benches than on the Conservative Benches. We have lacked speeches from what one might describe as "heavyweight" former Conservative Ministers.
This morning I attended a meeting about Gibraltar with a much larger contingent of heavyweight Conservatives from both Houses. I know that Gibraltar is an important issue of British foreign policy but I would suggest cautiously to my Conservative colleagues that under current conditions Iraq and the Middle East are perhaps rather more important in the scheme of things than the protection of the people of Gibraltar.
The focus in this debate is on weapons of mass destruction and on Iraq. But we should recognise that we must place that in the context of the Middle East as a whole; of links to the Arab-Israeli conflict; of international energy dependence and supply; of the current debate about US foreign policy in Washington and elsewhere; of US/European relations; and of course of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to form a bridging role between the United States and its European allies.
We all accept that the present Iraqi regime is a dreadful one. None of us wishes to defend anything that Saddam Hussein as head of it has done. But, sadly, it is not the only dreadful regime in the world. We have to look at the evidence on where it is now on weapons of mass destruction. The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said in evidence to a Select Committee of the other place some weeks ago that there is a real threat to this country that Iraq might be able to have weapons of mass destruction which could reach this country "in a few years' time".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford laid considerable emphasis on the doubts that we have from all available evidence that there is a likely threat within a relatively short period. I looked in my briefing at the report of the Monterey Institute of International Relations on where Iraq is on weapons of mass destruction. It states that on delivery systems it is possible that there may be a few scuds left with a range
of 650 kilometres and that there are some other missiles available with ranges of between 45 and 90 kilometres. That is not a very direct threat to this country and even less of a direct threat to the United States.I am very sorry that the Government have not yet produced a paper on the evidence for weapons of mass destruction and the threat from Iraq. But from the best available evidence it seems that the danger from Iraq is neither clear nor immediate. It is certainly not sufficient to justify an attack during the next 12 months, which is what is being discussed within the United States.
Of course there is the problem of international terrorism. But we have again seen no evidence that the struggle against international terrorism—which is a different issue—and the question of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction are linked. Two weeks ago I read a long piece in the New Yorker which attempted to put together the best evidence possible for linking the two. Frankly, it was incredibly weak. That case has not been made out.
So what is our appropriate response? I worry most that the United States and now the British Prime Minister have shifted from focusing on the weapons of mass destruction issue to a regime change as our objective in Afghanistan. In his speech in the George Bush Senior Presidential Library the Prime Minister talked about "regime change" as an acceptable objective. I regret that he made such a concession to the Bush Administration's view.
In February, in a Wall Street Journal article there was the suggestion that there is a legal justification for America's point of view stemming from Saddam's,
- "dedicated efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, combined with his open hostility to the US and its allies".
The legality of the removal of regimes was covered very powerfully in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. We have to recognise—I want to move on to the American foreign policy debate—that what we see in the United States is, in effect, a demand that, having sorted out Afghanistan, it should move on to sort out the rest of the world.
On 1st February in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, stated:
- "First, Afghanistan to the east. Next, Iraq to the west. . . . After Afghanistan, where do we go from here? Stage Two . . . is the reaching out for low-hanging fruit . . . Philippines, Boznia, Somalia; pressuring former bad guys like Yemen (or Sudan?)
- But this is all prologue. Stage Three is overthrowing Saddam Hussein".
There is an evident link to the Israel-Palestine dispute. We recognise that that is now the absolute priority for western action. We also recognise the impact on Arab governments and opinion of a conflict that is in severe danger of getting out of control. There was another worrying element in the Washington Times, which is the journal of the hard American right. It was an open letter to President Bush published last Thursday from the project for the New American Century. It directly linked support for Israel with getting rid of Saddam Hussein. It is clearly linked in with what the American right wishes the US to achieve. Again that is not something which we should support.
We are all painfully aware of the divisions over foreign policy within the Bush Administration and of the efforts of a deeply partisan ideological right in Washington to push it into a unilateralist and imperialist approach to world politics. The "axis of evil" speech was very much a victory for the "terrible simplifiers of the right", that alliance of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists and of those who never came to terms with the American support for multilateral international institutions.
What then should be the British response to this bitter debate within Washington? I noted in one of the American newspapers that I was reading a reference to the "expectations of unconditional support from Britain". That would be a great mistake. Britain should be a firm supporter of wise American foreign policy, but always within limits. Our support should always be conditional.
In that respect the Prime Minister's speech on 7th April was a great missed opportunity to give some cautionary messages to informed American public on the importance of working within the framework of the United Nations and of international law as in the long-term interests of the United States as of the rest of the organised and institutionalised international community; and of the need to look at peace and development across the Middle East as a whole, not just the Israel-Palestine dispute, but also better relations with Iran, which is wrongly demonised in the American Right-wing debate. Although the Prime Minister made a passing reference to energy policy, there was nothing about the link to reducing the profligate use of energy within the United States which has led it to be the world's leading importer of energy, with all that that implies for its complicated relations with the Middle East.
There is the need for the United States to maintain a clear partnership with Europe. I felt that the Prime Minister's language wavered sadly between talking about US/British partnership and US/European partnership. There was a failure to say fully and clearly that the war on terrorism and containment of weapons of mass destruction are different issues which should not be run together. There was a failure also to point out that the issue of getting inspectors back into Iraq is not yet lost. I understand—perhaps the Minister can tell us more—that the UN discussions on the reintroduction of inspectors into Iraq are to start again on 18th April.
The United States is our most important ally. But we should avoid adopting a position of "my ally, right or wrong". Intervention now to remove the Iraqi regime would be illegal, unwise and unnecessary. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, when the United Kingdom and France embarked on the disastrous mistake of the Suez expedition, the United States rightly refused to support them. In this situation, Her Majesty's Government should offer the strongest support to the United States and to international institutions in the war on terrorism but should at the same time press the United States to be more active in the Israel-Palestine dispute and to hold its own hawks in check on removing the current regime in Iraq.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for bringing this debate to our attention today. Your Lordships will be well aware that my contributions normally concern military affairs and I speak with due humility on this subject today, as my noble friend Lord Howell is detained elsewhere.
The debate has discussed complex matters, clarified many highly relevant issues and enabled your Lordships' House to consider these important matters in a frank and open way. I agree that we need a debate in your Lordships' Chamber in government time.
We on these Benches support the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America in their determination to tackle the issue of the growing threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We agree that robust action must be taken to deal with that problem and that we must not shy away from it, as some would wish. The Government and Her Majesty's loyal Opposition reflect world opinion. We speak for it and are prepared to act on its behalf and we support the United States of America because she speaks and acts on the same principles.
Few people will disagree with that, but concerns arise over how and what action should be taken to resolve this grave and dangerous problem. At this stage, while no decision has yet been made to resolve this alarming situation, we support the Government in pursuing the most effective course of action—whether it be containment, diplomatic, economic, deterrent or military action. However, whichever type of action is taken should be preceded by an intense but gradual measured escalation of diplomatic and political measures to show the world—not least the Arab countries—that the West is offering Saddam Hussein every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions.
As your Lordships have emphasised, it should be remembered that Iraq is continuously in breach of UN resolutions concerning the ceasefire and Saddam Hussein has failed to assure the world that he is not engaged in developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and their launcher and delivery systems. Some countries and their cities are already within range of ballistic missile bases in the Middle East and in a few years' time most
of Europe will be in range. However, although Iraq is a sponsor of state terrorism, as has been said frequently throughout the debate no credible evidence has so far been discovered that links Iraq to Al'Qaeda.It is known and confirmed by a United States Congress report and a Central Intelligence Agency report released on 9th January that Iraq is pursuing ambitious plans to increase the range, reliability and accuracy of its ballistic missiles and only a significant change in its political orientation will stop it from doing so. That creates even greater risks to Europe, the USA, our military forces and our allies throughout the world.
Before the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq had a frightening range of weapons of mass destruction. The eventual admission by Iraq of biological holdings is terrifying—consisting of about 20,000 litres of concentrated botulinum, some 8,500 litres of concentrated anthrax and 2,200 litres of aflatoxin. The UN is especially worried about 600 aerial chemical bombs and on ballistic missiles it said that it could not account for at least seven Iraqi-made missiles and two Russian made Scud missiles. Furthermore, thousands of tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of chemical weapons and some 31,000 chemical weapons munitions are also unaccounted for.
It is clear that Iraq now possesses the holdings and capability to use weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and his Government have obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, of which Iraq is a signatory, not to proliferate nuclear capabilities. The fear of his doing so is of great concern. Nine United Nations Security Council resolutions have been passed, none of which Saddam Hussein has complied with in full, and 27 separate obligations have been placed on him, of which he is in blatant breach of at least 23. There is an urgent need for weapons inspectors to be readmitted in compliance with United Nations Resolution 687 to verify and destroy those holdings.
Saddam Hussein will not comply with the United Nations resolution and allow the inspectors to return—presumably because he has something to hide and because his objection to free inspection finds support among his Arab neighbours. The argument about inspection is about Saddam Hussein being willing to receive inspectors, pre-approved by him, to look at what they are shown on a prearranged timetable, as opposed to the UN being able to send in people of its choice to look at whatever they want whenever they want.
The international community's most pressing demand is for Iraq to allow UN inspectors to return to Iraq to verify and destroy Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of those weapons of mass destruction. That is the action that Iraq must take to return to the international community, for what lies at the heart of the issue is the rule of international law. No half-measures or rhetoric should be accepted as a commitment by Iraq to meet its obligations under the security resolutions.
There is no doubt that action must be taken if the West is to pre-empt the use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. However, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that any course adopted must be morally right, legal and comply with international law. Some say that direct military intervention is the answer to the problem. However, while no option should be ruled out, it would surely be wise to ensure that every measure has been brought to bear before military action is taken. Some options that have been referred to are containment by sanctions, greater diplomatic pressure, deterrence and military force.
First, as far as I am aware, the goal of containment was to prevent Saddam Hussein from rebuilding Iraq's military power and weapons of mass destruction through sanctions. Containment has been operating for a number of years and it is generally accepted that it is insufficient and no longer a realistic policy to pursue.
Secondly, much greater and stronger diplomatic pressures are required. One of those should be to dissuade neighbouring Arab states from giving support to Saddam Hussein to prevent full and free weapons inspections. The other is for the USA to force the Israelis to recognise the state of Palestine and in return to ask the Arab states to support western policy for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions.
Thirdly, there is the policy of deterrence. A number of military options can be deployed if Iraq fails to respond to diplomatic pressure. That should involve a steady and progressive application of realistic military pressure on a proportionate basis, which should enable the West to carry most of its allies with it—including the more reluctant of the coalition partners. It can be tailored into continuing diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis and it should make post-conflict reconstruction and settlement easier, should it come to that.
Finally, with containment not working, and should the policies of increased diplomatic pressure and deterrence fail, the application of military force must be examined if the West is to achieve its aim of freeing the world of the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. The West must also be prepared to act in order to persuade the Israelis not to strike with their nuclear weapons. They may be tempted to do so if their intelligence sources suggest that Saddam Hussein may be about to use weapons of mass destruction against Israel.
There is not time in this debate to discuss the types of military action that could be used. However, a nuclear-armed Iraq would be a disaster waiting to happen and any military attack on Iraq must be carried out by a very large-scale allied forces operation using overwhelming ground forces. An approach similar to the employment of air power, the use of special forces and the enlistment and deployment of local opposition groups from the Shia and Kurds to do most of the fighting, as has been used in Afghanistan, is highly questionable and may not produce the rapid and
conclusive result required, especially by the Arab states. It must be clearly understood that, if Saddam Hussein realised that the West was intent on a regime change, he would fight back with everything that he had. That could include a ballistic missile attack on Israel. Whichever course is adopted, it must be robust and be seen through to the bitter end.The Government of Iraq have already used weapons of mass destruction against their own people. They have the capability to use them again, and that is the most serious threat to society as a whole since the first atomic bombs brought a sudden end to the Second World War. Arab opinion will not tolerate a long drawn-out campaign but demands, if it is to tolerate any action, a rapid and decisive conclusion. Effective and conclusive action would constitute liberation, not invasion. Unless President Bush matches resolution towards Iraq with firmness towards Israel, the international coalition may break up.
We on these Benches welcome and support the Prime Minister's assurances that he will stand by America as a staunch and strong ally to end the production of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq and that no course of action should be ruled out. If we sit back and do nothing, we may find that those horrific weapons are used against us.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page